Re: why required weight?

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

Teddy and all, my apologies---at the time, I wrote hastily in trying to
get out the door and truly did not intend the post to sound as harsh as
(in retrospect) it does.  It was never meant as a personal attack. 
That's just not my style.  

Let me word it a little better---you and all are always welcome to have
your own opinions and feelings, I don't expect one study to change
everyone's minds overnight.  I realize that it's hard to hear something
totally new that goes against what has always been ASSUMED to be true,
even that goes against surface logic, and just accept it as a total
truth at face value.  That's why I've tried to explain the logic of this
study over and over---because I do realize that at face value, it SEEMS
as though it goes against common knowledge.  BUT---once you read the
accompanying discussions and explanations of energetics that goes alot
with it, believe me, a little light bulb will go on and you'll realize
that what the study says is simply validating what most of the
"old-timers" have been saying for decades.

Teddy, I know you never said that it wasn't, but this is a solid,
well-conducted empirical project, done without any axe to grind or any
profit to be made my me in coming up with one conclusion over another. 
I actually started the project expecting weight to be a major factor and
was floored that the statistics came out the way they did---we took a
YEAR re-analyzing everything because we kept thinking there was
something wrong with our math.  So we eventually came up with some
pretty strong results and conclusions, but even *I* don't think one
study (even this one) is the end-all and be-all as far as "weight as a
factor" is concerned, it is ONLY a beginning.  However, the results we
found really were extremely clear-cut that weight is not nearly the
factor many have in the past thought it is.  Yes, extra weight will
affect a horse.  Will it necessarily knock him out of the running? 
Nope.  All this study showed was that under certain conditions (ie,
running under sub-anaerobic speeds with horses in good body condition)
that two horses that are in all other ways equal have an equal chance of
winning.

If you want it, I'd be happy to send you a copy of the study---I think
you'll see that it really does make sense, and has some very clear
explanations of how even average endurance riders can improve
performance and/or avoid some fatigue and metabolic problems.

No flames, Teddy.  Honest.

Susan G



Teddy Lancaster wrote:
> 
> 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.