Re: conditioning

[fmechelh@c-s-k.de]

Tivers wrote:

> <<  I think Tom's point was that we could probably see
>  much better performances in all disciplines of racing if we accepted
>  that some horses will tolerate much greater training loads than has
>  typically been accepted.  T >>
>
> I would expand that to "all" performance horses. While it is true that some
> animals will not be able to take the level of work that other animals can
> tolerate, I don't think that any athletic horse is exercising to its genetic
> potential. Because of the human restraints involved, I don't think we ever
> will develop that kind of horse.

but we should find out how to get as close as possible without hurting the
horse. If some people win races with pretty good natural athletes trained only
to 65% of their capabilities, others become bounced with overtrained animals,
and no one is able to reach this 100% safely, then it should be some thrill in
conditioning research, shouldn't ?

So the first step is to admit that except of some practical rules of thumb the
scientific knowledge about training an endurance horse is quite low. One of the
reasons is, you are right Beth, that it is too difficult to ask the horse about.

Unfortunatly it's unpossible for me to weigh my horses every day, and making
blood test two times per week. But I realize there is some truth in it.

BTW, what means CPK, is it the enzyme creatinkinase ? Or creatinphosphor ? And
SGOT ? Seems to me sometimes, every blood sampling institute has it's own
shortcuts. At least every country has. Is there a manual where I can read for
that stuff ? In "The athletic horse" from Reuben Rose I found an article about
blood tests, but not in depth. makes me dizzy! (I'm graduate businessman, not
chemist !)

regards

Frank