Re: Re:overweight an issue? - Weight vs. lean mass

[twoodcock@lendleaserei.com]

My apologies, I was attempting to reference the first of your summarized points
below and I should have used a different phrase than "no impact".

Tamara Woodcock






"Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net> on 07/25/2000 09:40:50 PM

Please respond to "Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>

To:   Tamara Woodcock/US1/Lend Lease@LLNA, ridecamp@endurance.net
cc:

Subject:  Re: Re:overweight an issue? - Weight vs. lean mass





>
>
> Didn't I see a study from Susan G on the 1996 Tevis that said rider
weight/rider
> weight to horse ratio had no impact in endurance?  I can't get to the
internet
> right now, or I would look it up, but I'm fairly sure I saw this.
>
> Tamara


No, you did not.  Sorry, but I swear, I'm gonna shoot myself when the next
person says my studies say that.  It says nothing of the kind.

One more time:
It does say that RWR and rider weight had no effect on completion rate or
placing, at least at this particular ride over three years.  That is NOT the
same as no impact.

Either the '96 or the '98 study discusses about how combined rider weight
and body weight of the horse over a certain point affects the incidence of
lameness (it goes up).

It says that body condition score (which is not the same as body weight and
has nothing to do with rider weight) has a tremendous impact on the
incidence of metabolic pulls.

It points out that if the condition score is low (ie, the horse is thin),
than rider weight and RWR did become an issue, in that thin horse/big rider
ran into metabolic trouble faster than anyone else.

And it discusses at some length about the energetics involved and why all of
this is a reasonable conclusion.  Plus lots and lots of boring numbers and
statistics.

Susan G