Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev]  [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]  [Thread Next]  [Date Index]  [Thread Index]  [Author Index]  [Subject Index]

Apples to Apples?

Michael K. Maul wrote:
>
> > Susan,
> >
> > from the formula - it would seem that the difference between a 165 lb
> > rider and a
> > 210 lb rider is only about a 4% in energy expenditure for the same
> > distance/time
> >
> > This seems to be pretty small and not justify the differences in scoring
> > for BC
> > and also not to fit with my perception that carrying HW is much harder
> > for a horse.
> >
> > Your thoughts?  I am a HW BTW.
> >
> > Mike
> > mmaul@flash.net
> >
> > >average horse to cover 50 miles---a 900 lb horse carrying a 165 lb
> > >rider
> > >and covering 50 miles in 6 hours actual riding time burns up 18.3
> > >Mcals.  The same horse carrying a 210 lb rider and covering the same
> > >fifty miles in four hours would burn 26 Mcals.
 


Mike, you're right.  I calculated that a 900 lb horse completing fifty
miles in six hours carrying a 165 lb rider is burning 18.27 Mcals, and
if carrying a 210 lb rider, would burn 19.03 Mcals.  So you're right, a
4.16% difference in energy expenditure.  That may be a big part of why I
got the results I did in my research project that says weight of the
rider didn't make a difference in how well the horse performed.

My opinion is that increased weight of the rider is not a big strain to
the horse energetic pathways-wise, as long as the intensity of the
exercise remains submaximal.  However, it's been pretty well established
(though some people argue to what extent) that weight makes a difference
in maximal exercise, so if a 165 lb rider and a 200 lb rider are
sprinting to the finish, the lighter rider probably has the advantage
because at that point the horse is burning sugars, not fats for energy
production and glycogen depletion is going to occur faster in the horse
carrying the heavier load.  That's just plain old physics of the amount
of energy required to move a certain mass forward at a certain velocity,
and the end result of lactic acid accumulation and glycogen depletion
causing fatigue.

Heavier weight is also going to definitely make a difference, at least
in the long run, in the amount of strain to the bones and joints.
There's no doubt that extra weight puts more strains on the legs and
that's going to create more stress than if the rider is lighter.

Whether BC scoring is currently judged appropriately re weight...hmm, I
dunno.  Energetically, there isn't as much difference between the light
vs. the heavy load as was once thought, but the heavier-loaded horse
also HAS to sustain and overcome substantially more strain to the bones
and joints than did the lighter-loaded horses---especially in order to
maintain an equivalent speed so that both horses covered the course in
the same elapsed time.

So the heavier-loaded horse had to STILL pay a higher cost to remain
sound and moving forward---it just that the higher cost is not so much
as energetics required to move the mass forward, it's in the cost of
overcoming increased concussion and strain to soft and dense support
tissues.  So, IMHO, although the reasons are maybe a little
different than what AERC was thinking, I still think the judging is
probably appropriate.

It also means that if I was looking for a horse for a HWT (I ride hwt
too), I would probably put plenty of emphasis on really strong, correct
legs and feet, and in correct conformation over the back to be able to
adequately carry that increased load.

S

-- BEGIN included message

Mike, you're right.  I calculated that a 900 lb horse completing fifty
miles in six hours carrying a 165 lb rider is burning 18.27 Mcals, and
if carrying a 210 lb rider, would burn 19.03 Mcals.  So you're right, a
4.16% difference in energy expenditure.  That may be a big part of why I
got the results I did in my research project that says weight of the
rider didn't make a difference in how well the horse performed.

My opinion is that weight of the rider is not a big strain to the horse
energetic pathways-wise, as long as the intensity of the exercise
remains submaximal.  However, it's been pretty well established that
weight makes a difference in maximal exercise, so if a 165 lb rider and
a 200 lb rider are sprinting to the finish, the lighter rider probably
has the advantage because at that point the horse is burning sugars, not
fats for energy production and glycogen depletion is going to occur
faster in the horse carrying the heavier load.

Heavier weight is also going to definitely make a difference, at least
in the long run, in the amount of strain to the bones and joints. 
There's no doubt that extra weight puts more strains on the legs and
that's going to create more stress than if the rider is lighter.

Whether BC scoring is currently judged appropriately re weight...hmm, I
dunno.  Energetically, there isn't as much difference as was once
thought, but the heavier-loaded horse also had to sustain and overcome
substantially more strain to the bones and joints than did the
lighter-loaded horses---especially in order to maintain an equivalent
speed so that both horses covered the course in the same elapsed time. 
So the heavier-loaded horse had to still pay a higher cost to remain
sound and moving forward---so although the reasons are maybe a little
different than what AERC was thinking, I still think the judging is
probably appropriate.

It also means that if I was looking for a horse for a HWT (I ride hwt
too), I would probably put plenty of emphasis on really strong, correct
legs and feet.

S

Michael K. Maul wrote:
> 
> Susan,
> 
> from the formula - it would seem that the difference between a 165 lb
> rider and a
> 210 lb rider is only about a 4% in energy expenditure for the same
> distance/time
> 
> This seems to be pretty small and not justify the differences in scoring
> for BC
> and also not to fit with my perception that carrying HW is much harder
> for a horse.
> 
> Your thoughts?  I am a HW BTW.
> 
> Mike
> mmaul@flash.net
> 
> >average horse to cover 50 miles---a 900 lb horse carrying a 165 lb
> >rider
> >and covering 50 miles in 6 hours actual riding time burns up 18.3
> >Mcals.  The same horse carrying a 210 lb rider and covering the same
> >fifty miles in four hours would burn 26 Mcals.

-- END included message

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff
Back to TOC