Re: RC: Reply from an educated derelict

[David LeBlanc <dleblanc@mindspring.com>]

At 01:00 AM 12/27/99 EST, Tivers@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/26/99 8:51:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
>dleblanc@mindspring.com writes:

> You've apparently done a great deal of work with race horses on what we
> consider to be extremely short distances.  The very long distances we deal
> with are a very different picture from a physiological standpoint.
> Considering that, do you have any actual data to back this up?  IIRC, you
> previously stated that your personal experience with endurance was limited.>

>Limited, not non-existent. My personal experience is severely limited in all 
>areas.

The point is that lessons learned with thoroughbreds on tracks may not
extend well to arabs on very long trails.

> <So, what studies have you directly participated in with respect to
> endurance?  What were the results of these studies?  Are any of them
> published in peer-review journals?>

>Looking for academic credentials? I have none. 

Not especially concerned about _your_ credentials, but more so about the
particular claims being made.

>introduced interval training in 
>racehorses, 

Interesting - I was using this way back in the 70's doing bicycle racing,
and some of my friends were doing it as runners.  It isn't a far step to
apply that to horses - mostly the same problem.

>invented glycogen loading techniques (by 
>accident) that have won millions of dollars in purses for others

I was also doing this racing bikes in the mid-70's.  Bicycling has events
that typically last 5-6 hours (with no regulated rest stops).  It was a
well-known and common technique in cycling as far back as the early 70's.
When was it first applied to horses?

>No academic 
>credentials whatever.  

Sounds like plenty of real-world experience, which is often better.  Didn't
mean to ask for your resume.

> > >All of us are risk takers. Any horse sport
> > involves an element of danger to both rider and animal. Some choose to
> > accept high risks to acheive a certain goal, others would like to minimize
> > risks to acheive a different goal. So be it-but you need to know the risks
> > if you are to avoid or face them! >
> 
> >You have yet to demonstrate, remotely, any risk at all to carbohydrate 
> >supplementation during a ride. 
 
>> You haven't demonstrated anything one way or the other here.>

>I'm not the one who is hysterical.   

Whether she, you, or I are or were hysterical isn't the point.  Nothing
I've read so far would lead me to the conclusion that any of us are
hysterical.

The point is that if I feed some large population of endurance horses
substance X at rides, then there will be some measurable benefit (or
possibly zero), and some measurable risk (again, possibly zero).  I'd like
those numbers quantified using some reasonably designed experimental method.  
 
> >Indeed, the reports coming in indicate benefit--for the horse. 

> Reports from who?  Are we dealing with anecdotal evidence, or are we
> dealing with properly designed studies?  How was the data collected?  How
> many horses were in the sample?>

>You're the academic. That's your job. And if you don't hurry, I'm going to 
>beat you to that, now that I have a complete physiology lab to play with. 
>Give me a couple of weeks.

It isn't my job to do studies in this area.  I'll be interested to see what
the results are.  I'm an end-user of the information.
 
> >Your dire warnings, and those of Heidi, are 
> >motivated, in my opinion, by something other than the welfare of the 
> >horse--perhaps squirming attempts at defending past "pronouncements" from 
>on 
> >high. Again, I confess that I can't fathom the logic.
 
> I read it differently.  I believe she's just asking you to document the
> risks and benefits.  I see no "dire warning" here - just merely asking you
> to document your claims of benefit, and substantiate what the risk factor
> is.>

>Really? Again, these are the games of academics. You can't prove a negative. 

You don't need to prove a negative.  Also, the "games of academics" have
substantial value in the real world.  I've operated in very different areas
of research, but it has taught me a little about experimental design.  The
way you do this is:

1) Define ways to measure benefit
2) Define ways to measure risks (e.g., tying up, reduction of some defined
benefit, etc.)
3) Run an experiment with a test group and a control population.  Use as
many subjects as you can get your hands on.  Try and eliminate as many
other factors as possible - train them all the same way, etc.

Now look at the results.  If there were no incidence of negative behaviors,
then report that.  Note that the smaller the sample size, the greater the
risk that the population that exhibits a negative behavior was excluded
from the study by accident.

>I know that the academic religion is that all nutritional supplementation is 
>quackery, or drugging, or horrifically dangerous unless a deficiency is 
>demonstraed. That's your problem, not mine. Have at it--prove me wrong. 
>You've got the lab, the funding and the credentials--save the world from me. 
>I'll even help fund the study if you come up with a useful protocol.  

This isn't a religeous issue.  The problem I have is that the state of
science when it comes to what we're doing is woefully inadequate.  There
isn't much being done.  The people doing it usually aren't from a technical
background, and there are a lot of old wives tales that somehow become
truth.  You ask someone why they do something, and they tell you "it just
works for me".  No way to tell if it works for you or anyone else.  Worse
yet, there isn't millions of dollars in prize money for endurance races, so
there isn't a financial motive to spend millions studying it.

The cautious approach of academics comes from experiences with things like
the drug industry - I once took a newly developed painkiller.  Worked great
for me, but after a number of elderly people died from it, it got pulled
from the market.  I run into the same sort of thing all over the place -
might work for the test group, but as soon as you get everyone doing it,
you sometimes find out some nasty problems.

There's no need to save the world from you, but if you keep throwing
molotovs all over the list and starting flamewars left and right, then
there might be a need to save the list from you.  You're a writer (and from
your reviews, a good one), and know exactly what you're doing with your
words.  Please try to refrain from being inflammatory.  It really doesn't
help in terms of getting people to listen, or even reply in a civil manner.
 This list is a useful resource to a lot of people, and when lots of them
are running around PO'd, it becomes less useful.

> > I have a hard time believing that anything is utterly risk-free -
> TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  So, how many horses
> have you tried this on that participated in endurance rides, and what were
> the results?  Were there _any_ negative results?>

>Yes, we differ in approach. We differ primarily in our approach to
retention. 
>I can tell you that it's been tried many more times than have been
documented 
>in this newsgroup. there have been no negative results other than those 
>already mentioned--which, if you've actually been reading this stuff, you'll 
>know about already. 

"many more times" is very nice, but how many is that? 5? 10? 30?  How many
different horses?  Substantiate your claims.  What other factors did you
control for?
 
> >Since you like to question motivations, I'll lay mine out right now - I
> don't do research in this area, I don't have any books or videos to sell,
> and I'm not a vet.  I'd just like to have more competitive horses that are
> fit to continue for many, many more years to come.>

>Excellent. You must make a living doing something? Sounds like research to 
>me. 

I do network security, specializing in Windows NT.  Before that, I did
research on emissions from cars, and how the emissions respond to various
human factors (got my Ph.D. [union card] from that one).  My research
contributed to the EPA making some rule changes that will result in a few
million tons less pollutants in our air every year.  I was an ASE certified
master automotive technician working with high performance vehicles prior
to that.  Before being a mechanic, I had the misfortune to get a MS in
aerospace engineering shortly before the Challenger exploded, and studied
heart-rate variability in newborns while in AE as part of the
bioengineering program.  I also make a bit of spare change as a writer in
the computer security field.

The common thread here is that it's really hard to figure out what's going
on when either humans or animals are involved, and I learned a bit about
how you design studies to deal with those problems.

>Now, if you're not a pure academic, then you just might have a touch of 
>curiosity in your blood. 

Whatever would lead you to the conclusion that pure academics aren't
curious?  Not my experience with them at all, and I've encountered more
than my share during 2 bouts of graduate school.


David LeBlanc
dleblanc@mindspring.com


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