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

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

> << 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.
>
>  Define "bigger price".
>
>
>  Susan G >>
>
>
> More rapid fuel depletion, higher heartrates, slower recoveries, higher
body
> temps, earlier substrate cascade, mechanical stressors, reduced
biomechnical
> efficiency, increased likelihood of injury, etc.
>
> ti


More rapid fuel depletion, probably.  But again, if there's *enough* to fuel
the horse for 100 miles, does it matter whether the gas tank is now only a
quarter full or half full.  The horse is still in Auburn.

Higher heart rates, slower recoveries, higher body temps, earlier substrate
cascade---maybe.  If so, if its a significant difference, over a course that
long and in that many horses, wouldn't you reasonably expect to see slower
times to completion, higher incidence of metabolic pulls, lower completion
rate that would relate to such metabolic stress.  Wasn't there.  Didn't
happen.

Mechanical stresses, reduced biomechanical efficiency, increased likelihood
of injury---agreed on all those points.  I've pointed out several times that
increased combined weight led to higher incidence of lameness.  But it
wasn't necessarily simply due to rider weight, you had to also look at the
increased body weight of the horse himself.

Susan G