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

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/26/00 12:28:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
suendavid@worldnet.att.net writes:

<< What I said is that I don't argue that more weight means more energy
 expenditure.  But it didn't affect overall results, as long as the horse was
 in good body condition.  A heavyweight rider was just as likely to complete,
 finish high, whatever.  I also said if the horse is excessively thin, AND is
 carrying a high RWR, then they burned out faster.  Also that high combined
 rider weight plus body weight contributed to lameness, a biomechanical
 disadvantage.  That's more complex than simply rider weight as a parameter.>

And how, again, did you measure excessive thinness? 

At any rate, no matter what the "condition" of the horse, it is clear that a 
heavier rider weight is more costly. If there are two horses, both weighting 
the same, both having equal "condition", one carrying a 150 lb load and 
another carrying a 250 lb load, then the latter is going to be under more 
exercise stress. In addition, my initial statement was that a smaller horse,  
give all other variables the same, will pay a bigger price for having the 
same 170 lb rider on his back than a larger horse. I believe that statement 
holds up as well, despite your initial argument against.
 
 
 > I will be happy to think about weight differently, as soon as I see better
 > thinking.
 
 Maybe I'm just way ahead of you on this one, fella.  Keep thinking and
 you'll see how beautifully it all makes sense, right down to the cellular
 level. >>

Mebbe. Mebbe not. Time will tell.


ti