Re: Newbie query: why required weight?

[Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

Jerald Thiessen wrote:
> 
> Weight is always a factor at any speed (aerobic or anaerobic). It is just more
> of a factor as you speed up.BUT NOT NECESSARY THE DECIDING FACTOR.

Agreed.

> I do not think anyone said it is the determining factor , I as a heavy weight
> see it a something to me to overcome. I agree that we cannot equalize it by
> adding weight, but that does not justify the "denial" that carrying extra weight
> over great distances does cost the horse to expend more energy. 

ONE MORE TIME---nobody is "denying" that weight does not cost more
energy.  BUT SO WHAT?  Way too much attention is being paid to the fact
that energy expenditure and  heart rate in a heavier horse is going to
be higher---so what?  Show me a race where HR during the event decides
the winner.  It doesn't---getting there first does.  Are you going to
tell me that if I'm riding alongside a lwt horse with a HR of 120 bpm,
and at the same speed, my Hwt horse's HR is 140 bpm, that means the Lwt
horse has mine beat?  I don't think so.  As long as the heavier horse
can carry the weight without going into anaerobic levels, the heavier
horse may not be as efficient as the lighter horse, but he's still
plenty efficient enough.

Let's use a slightly different analogy---you have a road race between
two cars.  One is a 4-cylinder Toyota that gets 20 mpg.  The other is a
big, fat Chevy dually that only gets 10 mpg.  Who's going to win the
race?  The Toyota just because it gets better mileage per gallon?  It
would if you ran the race until somebody ran out of gas.  But what if
the supply of fuel were unlimited, is the Toyota still going to win just
because it's more efficient?  Not necessarily.  Efficiency doesn't
matter nearly as much when there's an unlimited supply of gas, does it?

This is what I'm saying energetically in the horse---fatty acids are in
virtually unlimited supply in both lwt and Hwt horse (assuming good body
condition).  A crafty Hwt rider that uses that to his advantage is just
as likely to win as a Lwt.  GLYCOGEN (sugar) is in short supply---in
both Lwt and Hwt horse, and so if you're running at speeds that are
going to use up glycogen quickly, then yes, the Lwt "Toyota" with the
better fuel economy has the advantage over the Hwt.  And the crafty LWT
rider knows this and will use it to advantage to beat the Hwt rider. 
It's a two-edged sword.

What I'm saying is that riding smart matters light years more than
riding light ever will.

I HAVE to get onto the road to Norco.  I'm outta here.

Susan G


 The horse is
> probably in better condition because of the extra weight carried in the training
> rides as well. The light weights should hire us heavies to condition their
> horses and then have the light weight compete. You light weights would be
> unstoppable.
> 
> Susan Evans Garlinghouse wrote:
> 
> > > On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Teddy Lancaster 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.
> >
> > K S Swigart wrote:
> > > >
> > > 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."
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Susan G