Re: electrolytes

[Truman Prevatt <truman.prevatt@netsrq.com>]

The greatest intellectual triumphs of the last 100 years is the rapid development
of our understanding of physical systems from the massive, e.g..,  universe, black
holes, etc. to the minute, e.g., elementary particles.  The reason for this was the
very disciplined approach taken which relies on the mathematical modeling of the
physical phenomena, derivation of predictions from the mathematics, designing
experiments to test these predictions and rolling the results of these experiments
back into the model.  In many cases the models had to be completely discarded.  The
history of physics is full of the bodies of disproved theories.

This progress has brought human kind great technological advances from the
semiconductor to the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System `to genetic engineering.
Yes genetic engineering was made available because of quantum mechanics.  Without
X-ray diffraction, the DNA structure would probably still be a mystery.   Without
quantum mechanics there would be no knowledge of X-ray diffraction.

The biological sciences do not in general have such a disciplined approach. Yes
there has been progress but our understanding is not near what it should be - my
opinion.  The use of mathematical models and methods in biological sciences is
relatively new and was pioneered by Steve Smale a mathematician at UC Berkeley and
his students of "mathematical bioloby".  Biology as a science tends to look for
cause and effect based on statistical analysis rather than focusing on developing
the necessary understanding of the underlying physics. While this approach my give
results quicker it does not lead to fundamental understanding.  If one doesn't
believe this just look at the journal articles.

There are many pitfalls in this approach and in spite of the extensive effort on
research many of the "proved results" are not better as conclusions drawn from long
term observation.  Much of the statistics used is somewhat suspect in that many
assumptions are made on the significance of various variables.  While there are
powerful statistical modeling tools available these require a much better
understanding of the physics/biology of the system than is currently known. These
tools have put long term weather forcasting on a much firmer footing.  I have
always found it very frustrating working with people testing biological hypothesis
because of their acceptance of a methodology  which depends on statistical
techniques to eliminate the effect of various "unknown variables".   This is done
without the appreciation that in order to apply these techniques the effects of
these variables need to be understood so that the appropriate statistical methods
can be used.  There is no free lunch.

So based on the state of the methodology in the biological sciences today, I would
tend believe that Heidi's intuition on this subject based on 20 some years of
experience is probably as valid as the conclusions drawn from "current research".
So when it comes to managing my horse I would be much more confortable with Heidi's
input than with the latest and greatest results.

Truman Prevatt, PhD
Mathematical Physicist


Michael I Lindinger wrote:

> Heidi, 20 years ago the only data on training was human data. I was just
> at a meeting with W Bayly, and data was presented and confirmed that the
> electrolyte composition of equine sweat does not change appreciably with
> training. I am aware of changes in appearance and 'feel' of sweat that
> people notice on their horses, but this does not appear to be associated
> with appreciable changes in sweat electrolayte concentrations.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 98-06-01 16:11:47 EDT, mlinding@uoguelph.ca writes:
> >
> > << A comment about Heidi's 'reference' to changes in horse sweat with
> >  training. The values stated (1/10th the amount of electrolyte per volume
> >  of sweat) are for humans, NOT horses. >>
> >
> > Mike, sorry I don't happen to have the papers on hand.  They were presented to
> > us in vet school nearly 20 years ago, in a course taught by Warwick Bayly, and
> > they were most definitely about horses.  I don't want to get into a big
> > argment about this, but I also know from personal experience that sweat of an
> > unconditioned horse tastes quite salty, and of a fit horse tastes not salty at
> > all.  Not very scientific, but quite real, thank you.
> >
> > Heidi Smith, DVM
> >