Re: Re:overweight an issue?

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

> Susan, you say that you "report your own findings, which had much better
control
> and methodology". How do you know? You referred to a study of about 600
horses,
> being ridden over the same track (Tevis) in two(?) years. Sorry, but don't
you
> confess that a study, tracked over 15 years,with a total of more than
12.000
> entries, of horses being ridden under all conditions, with every detail of
the
> rider and the horse plus all veterinary details is more significant than
your
> study???

The study you refer to is interesting, and I can't say why those results are
different from the ones in my study.  I've only collected this data at one
ride, and I don't suggest that my finidings apply everywhere.  But, at least
in this country, heavyweight riders do have a chance at winning.  They've
done it, on numerous occasions.  The course record at Tevis is held by a
heavyweight.

The difference between the study you cite, and mine, is that yours (sorry)
does *not* cover all the variables.  Does it include the horse's weight?
Its condition score?  Does it analyze the relationships between those two?
Let me illustrate---you have two riders, one a 200 and something pound
rider, and the other a 135 pound woman.  If I were to rely solely on your
statistics, the first rider hasn't got a chance of winning, and the second
rider should walk away with the whole thing.  But they didn't---the first
rider was Chris Knoch and Saxx, who won or came in a close second at Tevis
more than once, and the little girl who should have won was pulled for
metabolic all three years I was there.  My statistics showed that Chris'
horse was 950 pounds and had a good condition score, and the girl's horse
was 865 pounds and thin as a scarecrow.  Yes, Chris is also a runner, but I
could give you examples of riders who aren't runners.  There's more to it
than just looking strictly at rider weight all by itself, and unless/until
your survey includes that data---I'm sorry, this is just my opinion, but was
a lost opportunity for some really useful data.  They should have looked at
horse size as well.  It's interesting, but I can also think of reasons why
the results would come out that way---possibly differences in terrain
between the rides where that data was collected, versus the technical
footing at Tevis.  Differences in average size of the horse, how horses are
kept, whatever.  I don't know, there are alot of variables.  Possibly once
we collect data at different types of rides, different terrain, your results
will turn out to be the norm and the results at Tevis will be the exception.
But, at Tevis, and until that time, I'm sticking with my results and
conclusions.  I don't pretend to extrapolate my findings to every other ride
on earth, but for Tevis, you better believe I do.

Susan G