Re: Newbie query: why required weight...yada yada yada

["Suzanne J. Griffin" <FIT-TO-RUB@worldnet.att.net>]

It seems like this topic like many on this "chat room" has created many
diverse pathways, ie I believe this started as a question regarding FEI
weight rules and then has gone along the ways of the impact of weight on the
horse (lightweight riders vs heavyweight riders).  I'm creating another one.
I chose to respond to Trish's post, well, because it was one of the ones I
actually read instead of instantly deleted, but also it brings up a good
analogy, something WE can easily identify with...weight on our backs.  My
belief is if you train and condition your horse, he/she is accustomed to
that weight (we've discussed this before) as opposed to throwing a heavier
rider on a horse that is accustomed by being ridden by a lightweight.
HOWEVER, I think Donna Snyer-Smith is the only person I have heard of (might
not be the only one you flamers..) speak about the EFFICIENCY of the rider.
That is something I feel is a lot harder and a lot more important, if not
impossible, to measure the affect on the horse than is just weight.  Packing
your backpack with weight is one thing...HOW you pack it and WITH WHAT kind
of weight is another thing.  Same thing with weight of riders...a heavier
rider that is more efficient than a lighter weight rider who is much more
imbalanced...which is better, which is worse?
Uh huh...let the games begin.
susie (lightweight rider who is unconcerned with her weight but how well she
rides! and what that weight consists of)
-----Original Message-----
From: Trishmare@aol.com <Trishmare@aol.com>
To: fmechelh@c-s-k.de <fmechelh@c-s-k.de>; katswig@deltanet.com
<katswig@deltanet.com>
Cc: ridecamp@endurance.net <ridecamp@endurance.net>;
suendavid@worldnet.att.net <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>; WSAbg@t-online.de
<WSAbg@t-online.de>
Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Newbie query: why required weight?


>Dear All,
>     I'm not a researcher, nor do I have any "statistics" with which I can
>attempt to prove or disprove anything on this issue (what was it Mark Twain
>wrote, "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics?"
><G>), but I do have this much; I love to hike nearly as much as I love to
>ride.  Sometimes I think I like to hike even more than I like to ride.
Horses
>can be a hassle.  Anyway, any hiker who has carried a backpack over
distance
>and terrain will tell you . . . the WEIGHT of that backpack sure DOES make
a
>big difference . . .
>     Of course, this is not a statistic, but rather, personal experience,
so
>it is doubtless irrelevant to the discussion and proves exactly nothing.
Ah
>well, guess if I ever get the chance to endurance my horse I might just as
>well use a big old 70 lb western saddle, along with all the equipment I can
>carry (never know what one might need out there . . . I've got a huge old
cast
>iron skillet, just in case I want to fry an egg for lunch), as a cutback
>endurance model and minimal equipment.  After all, it ain't gonna make the
>slightest difference to the horse, is it?
>
>Trish Marie
>Grand Blanc, MI
>
>
><< Subj: Re: Newbie query:  why required weight?
> Date: 98-09-04 09:54:25 EDT
> From: fmechelh@c-s-k.de (Frank Mechelhoff)
> To: katswig@deltanet.com (K S Swigart)
> CC: ridecamp@endurance.net (Endurance List), suendavid@worldnet.att.net
>(suendavid@worldnet.att.net), WSAbg@t-online.de (Wolfgang Schwingenheuer)
>
> K S Swigart wrote:
>
> > > I must vehemently disagree with you. Weight carried by a horse,
> > > especially over long distances has been proven over and over again to
be
> > > a MAJOR decided factor in the outcome of ANY race.
> >
> > Show me the statitics.  The only studies I have ever seen where anybody
> > actually tried to figure out what the effect of weight carried had on
> > outcome of an endurance competition came to the statistical conclusion
> > that weight of the rider (and all its tack) is "insignificant."
>
> Susan G wrote:
>
> > Teddy, I have to agree with Kathy---it has NOT been shown in any
> > research project that weight makes a difference, especially over a long
> > distance.  There's only been ONE empirical research study that ever
> > looked at weight-carrying ability in endurance horses and that was
> > mine.  I've looked at over 600 endurance horses now and the statistics
> > are crystal-clear that weight makes NO difference to completion rate,
> > finishing time, or in pulled horses, how far they went before they were
> > pulled.  If the study weren't published, it would still be just my
> > opinion---but it's been dragged over the coals by a whole lot of
> > extremely nit-picking researchers that dearly love to find mistakes and
> > they all agreed with the conclusions.  WEIGHT IS NOT A FACTOR AT
> > SUB-ANAEROBIC SPEEDS.
> >
> I have to disagree on both.
>
> There is a study of DVM Chris Pollit (Australia) some 4-5 yrs. ago, on
> endurance horses. He compared not the results of rides but the haert rates
of
> horses with medium weight vs. heavy weight rider. the graphics pointed out
> higher working HR of the horse with heavyweight rider. this means the
horse
> with the heavyweight rider has to do more work compared to the same horse,
>the
> same speed but a lightweight rider.
>
> even if the horse with the higher workload is at higher risk at
competition,
> this need not result in measurable failure results necessarily, as Susan's
> study at Tevis Cup showed. (why ? perhaps because the heavy-weight
carrying
> horse is *trained* better, to live with this workload).
>
> if you go on a big trip with your horse and add 60 pds. of equipment to
the
> usual weight of rider and saddle, you will learn the difference quickly.
it
> will slow you down at least 1/3. although there is a difference between
> 'living' and 'dead' weight, you can't discuss it away.
>
>
> ...the lines in the "minimum weight" discussion are always very clear:
> heavyweights are pro, lightweights contra. it happens that this determined
> their view of hard facts. (just joking)
>
> regards
> Frank Mechelhoff (Germany) >>
>