Re: RC: Re: one of your type discussions on ridecamp now

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/16/99 11:36:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, Tivers writes:

<< You're incorrect. Again, it's a targeted supplemtation, not a complete 
diet workover. what you're doing is trying to make it appear to be some wild 
scheme that will turn a horse into a pillar of salt.  >>

Well, gol-lee, and here you've been saying that the VFA's are worthless, that 
your carbs will replace them, etc.  And here all along you really ARE 
intending it to be a supplement.  Why didn't you just fess up to that in the 
first place?

<<Ma'am, I read more science in a day than you read in a year. Again, if you 
want a cite war, I'm ready. Not much fun for Ridecamp readers, though. I'm 
happy that you are finally understanding the word "supplement", though. Major 
step in the right direction.>>

You're right.  <g>  You have lots more time to "read" the science than I do.  
I just have to deal with real, live horses.  And that's where the real action 
is, Tom.  But it's funny that others who read as much as you do, and in fact, 
do more than read--they actually take part in the research and help to 
GENERATE that science that you are so fond of citing, have also frequented 
these boards on numerous occasions to cite those references for you, and to 
point out the errors in your reasoning.  As I've stated before--the archives 
are full of those references--help yourself.

<<Roughage has its place, in all mammals. However, it's not something to 
become fixated on just because comparative anatomy 101 enables an equine vet 
to distinguish himself from a bovine vet. >>

This has to do with more than anatomy--it also has to do with understanding 
how that anatomy works.  And while roughage may be "important" to all 
mammals, not all of us have fancy digestive equipment to turn it into useable 
energy, and hence are also not as well geared to working off of that source 
of energy.  BTW--since you've never been to vet school, perhaps you are 
unaware of the fact that Anatomy 101 would be an undergrad class and that we 
have to learn a bit more than that about how these critters function...  You 
might find it edifying.

<<And where you'll find my own cites listed again and again and again.  An 
exercise in futility. >>

And where you'll also see many others urging you to either really admit what 
your sources say, or urging you to read more recent work from the same 
authors, as Sarah already did in this debate as per Lon Lewis.  What I find 
interesting about it all is that their academic views agree with what so many 
of us docs see in the field.  That's a pretty convincing combo, and attacking 
me because I don't keep a library at my fingertips doesn't change that 
interesting little coincidence.  We've been over this ground before, too, and 
other docs who are far more literature oriented have refuted your patter in 
this forum, too.  I can't think of any docs more "up" on current literature 
than Mathew McKay-Smith, and I even recall him weighing in on a past 
discussion chastising you.  Sorry if I happen to trust docs like MMS and 
Sarah Ralston--but the whole reason for others writing abstracts is so that 
those of us who are not so librarily-inclined can have the information in a 
digest form to further our educations.  Do you truly think that they are all 
lying to us?  Boy, it's one heck of a conspiracy, then.

<<"Insoluble fiber is the most poorly utilized potential source of Dietary 
energy. The higher the insoluble fiber content of feed, the lower the amount 
of usable dietary energy that feed will provide."

"What is analyzed in a feed as dietary fiber consists of not only 
polysaccharides composed of monosaccharides linked by beta bonds, but also 
lignin and, in overheated feeds, starch that has been rendered undigestible 
because of heat damage.">>

That's fine, Tom, and I'm not disputing that.  But--the above does NOT 
address the energy levels that are actually derived from that source--only 
states that you have to eat a lot more of it to get that energy.  No one EVER 
disputed that.  The point is that the horse is DESIGNED to do that, has 
adapted for centuries to eat that sort of quantity, and actually needs that 
quantity in his gut for it to function properly.  No one is denying that he 
can use some extra carbs--but you seem to be in some sort of denial about 
what a horse really is and how he works.  

But never mind--you've already admitted that you really ARE only talking 
about supplementation here, instead of your earlier sweeping comments about 
replacing all those nasty VFA's with carbs.  And that admission was really 
all I was after here.

Heidi


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=