Re: why required weight?

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

Last of the flames, PLEASE!!!!

Susan, I am SURPRISED at your attitude?  What is wrong with a difference of
opinion?  Science or no science, statistics or no statistics.

I have my beliefs and you have yours...when did I attack YOU!!!!!?????

teddy


Susan Evans Garlinghouse wrote:

> Teddy Lancaster wrote:
> >
> > If you are talking about completion ONLY...MAYBE............but, if you are
> > "running for the roses", logically, I cannot see how it is NOT a factor.
> > Studies or no studies.  Increased weight is increased work-load for the horse.
> >
> > Teddy
>
> Teddy, there was no statistical difference in weights between pulled
> horses, completers, top ten or winners.  Some of the horses carrying the
> heaviest weights (and "weight" was analyzed in a number of different
> ways) were top ten or winners, with histories of consistently being top
> ten in other races.  Yes, a horse moving a heavier mass is going to use
> more energy to move that mass---BUT, at sub-anaerobic speeds, the
> metabolic fuel for moving that mass is almost entirely fats and any
> horse in good body condition and having the muscular fitness is going to
> have an ample supply of fatty acids to supply the demand.  So, so what
> if the heavier horse is using more?  Both the heavier horse and the
> lighter horse have ENOUGH to get the job done and that's all that
> counts.
>
> Yes, in a "run for the roses", head-to-head in a flat out sprint, weight
> will make a difference because the metabolic fuel has switched to
> sugars, which are in shorter supply and are being used more quickly by
> the heavier horse.  I've been saying this from the beginning.  But all a
> Hwt rider has to do (and HAS done many, many times in the past) is be
> crafty enough over the length of the 100-mile trail to wangle himself a
> 50-yard or 100-yard head start and the head-to-head race will never
> happen.  If you're saying there are no opportunities for that kind of
> strategy along a 100-mile trail, well, I bet Bob Morris, Earl Baxter,
> Boyd Zontelli, and every other heavyweight who's ever won will disagree.
>
> You're welcome to blow it off as "studies or no studies", Teddy---you
> wouldn't be the first member of the Flat Earth Society.  Innovation that
> goes against the old beliefs is scarey, and ignoring it is always more
> comfortable.  Just my opinion, but if someone were interested in finding
> out from the study how to get better performance with fewer metabolic
> failures from their horse (heavyweight rider or not), they should read
> the study firsthand (which I'm happy to mail out to anyone who wants
> one) and see how it does in fact make sense.  But like it or not, the
> data is still there, and it's still real, and the conclusions are still
> iron-clad.
>
> I'm off to Norco Riverdance.  See y'all Sunday.