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

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

>
> I tend to detest jargon in all its forms. Just a quirk in my personality.

This from the man who flings VLA4 into conversation in a lay group?  Please.



> Can it be found in a medical dictionary? Or was it a spur of the moment
> creation like RWR?

ummmmmm.....Tom, it's a very basic word.  And it's even in the dictionary.
Just because you're not familiar with it doesn't make it exotic, or even
jargon.


> >  But the assumption has been
>  that with a large load,  the horse doesn't have the onboard fuel capacity
to
>  go just as far.  This study says they do, assuming the horse is in good
body
>  condition.>

>
> I don't think that you can come to that delusion.

You mean aside from data from 600 endurance horses?


Just look at what you said.
> You're saying that the same horse, fat as a hog--or whatever you consider
> "condition" to be--will carry a 150 lb rider or a 250 lb rider "just as
far".
> Just so you can't deny you ever said it, please read the quote taken
directly
> from your most recent post, above. You may not have meant to say that, but
> you did.

I'm saying that they can both go 100 miles, over the Tevis course, without
metabolic problems occurring in either one, and with no statistical
variation in final placing, time to get there (virtually the same thing), or
rate of completion.  Beyond 100 miles in a single day, couldn't tell ya.



I'm taking the time to read your words carefully and take them at
> their face value without adding any wild extrapolations. And what you said
> above is clearly, on the face of it, untrue. And it is the same thrust you
> made at the very beginning of this discussion. It's an oversimplification
and
> stretchy extrapolation of your data. Clarity of thought is reflected in
> clarity of expression.

You're throwing around alot of terms, but still haven't disproven my data.
And face it, you haven't even read the study in its entirety, have you?


>
>  >Now let's say the same horse is excessivly thin--I called it cachexic,
you
>  called it in a catabolic state.>
>
> "Excessively thin" is not the same as catabolic.

Please notice in several places that I referred to the cachexia explanation
as a hypothesis that I haven't yet clinically demonstrated.  And no, a
catabolic horse is not necessarily excessively thin, while a cachexic one
is.  I was attempting to provide you with a simpler explanation using terms
you were more comfortable with.

"Fuel depleted" is akin to
> catabolic. And this is where the intramuscular triglycerides come in--you
> tend to confuse body fat with muscle-stored fat.

No, I understand a difference, but also recognize a relationship between the
two.  Do you?  I'm saying one is probably an indication of the other.



 Body fat is costly to burn,
> IMTGs (note I referenced the acronym immediately above--the polite way uf
> using them) are very efficient to burn.

You're right, Tom, you are the very paragon of courtesy and politeness in
all you do (I'm trying hard not to bust out laughing here).  I stand
corrected and abjectly beg your forgiveness (still rolling on the floor
trying not to cause myself injury).



>  > Same thing---the horse hasn't been getting
>  enough calories and so to fuel the energy demand during conditioning,
he's
>  been burning up his own lean muscle mass.>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can't tell by looking at the horse.

Again, the cachexia is a theory to possibly explain the findings.  There's
precedence in cnacer-related nutritional studies to lend it some weight
until we collect more data.  But can I tell about a horse's relative body
fat stores by looking at him?  You bet I can.


>   >He might be aerobically fit as
>  hell, but the lean muscle isn't there to support it and actually drive
the
>  horse forward.  The net effect is that he has the same muscle mass
available
>  as a horse with considerably less conditioning>>
>
> Whoops, lost me there in that last sentence. First sentence says "muscle
mass
> isn't there", second sentence says "same muscle mass available..." Less
> conditioning doesn't necessarily equate with reduced muscle mass.

OK.  Reduced muscle mass from cachexia may equate with less aerobic
conditioning.  I don't know yet what metabolically the cachexic horse will
look like in analysis.  You'll be the first to know.


> ->--plus, less potential muscle
>  glycogen storage available (at least, hypothetically, none of this is
>  proven, but I'm working on it). >
>
> Let's call it substrate availability, in order to cover all the bases.

OK, that works for me.


>  >Now you put the heavyweight rider on this
>  thin, catabolic horse.  He's burning more calories per mile because of
the
>  extra weight, but the critical factor is that now he has *less lean
muscle
>  available and less glycogen onboard*---hence, he's relying more heavily
on
>  anaerobic metabolism, reaches fatigue and glycogen depletion faster and
is
>  going to be the first to get into metabolic trouble. >>
>
> Whoa! You didn't mean "anaerobic metabolism" did you?

If the cachexic horse has reduced muscle mass, than he has less substrate,
fewer fibers to recruit---fewer resources for the same amount of work.  That
means more work per fiber and if intensity of exercise continues, a higher
likelihood of operating closer to the fiber's upper limits.  I'm not saying
the entire system as a whole is running entirely anaerobic, I'm suggesting a
higher percentage of them are---resulting in faster glycogen useage, higher
lactate production and a faster time to fatigue.


>  >Under THOSE
>  circumstances, the size of the rider matters, because it directly affects
>  the calories required for each mile of trail.>
>
> The size of the rider matters under ALL conditions. Period. Obviously. The
> sentence above suggests it matter only under those circumstances. Clearly
> incorrect.

I'm sorry, Tom, I couldn't quite catch that with your head in the sand.

Does it matter what the fuel cost is per mile, as long as the horse has
enough resources onboard for the event at hand?  Or are you just refusing to
consider that traditional thought could possibly be wrong?  Oh,
Tom........and I thought you were willing to think outside the box.



> Catabolic and anabolic states are moving targets--you can't look at a
horse
> and say that he is in either state. It could be that a skinny horse was in
a
> catabolic state two weeks ago, but not today. It could also be that the
plump
> horse is catabolic right now, but not yesterday. Or it could be that the
> skinny was never, ever catabolic for any extended period. You just can't
draw
> those conclusions from eyballing a horse--and this is a gigantic mistake
some
> endurance vets are making. Big stupid mistake that has hurt at least one
> horse I'm familiar with.

Can you come up with a better explanation why the incidence of metabolic
failure was so screamingly high among these horses?  We're not talking a
dozen horses or so, we're talking consistent results among 600 horses.



> Well, what can I say here that won't offend? Actually, better just leave
the
> pointed metaphor alone.

Oh, phooey.  Admit it, Tom---you rant and howl about innovative thought and
thinking outside the box, but are afraid to step up to the line on this one,
because it just challenges too many comfy old beliefs.

Don't worry, I'll send you copies of future papers anyway.  And thanks again
for the books you donated for the project.  You're still my favorite
junkyard dog.

Susan G