Re: RC: RC: Re: overweight an issue?

["Nancy Mitts" <mitts_n@hotmail.com>]

According to our uncontrolled one rat study, weight matters, but can be 
compensated for, probably up to a point.
I rode our stallion his first 2600 miles (I did the conditioning also). He 
was carrying 165-170 lbs. (I carry a LOT of "stuff" <BG>!)
Then Monte started riding him (225 w/tack) and he really struggled that 
first season. Gradually (over 2 seasons) his performance improved to about 
what I was getting. (Now at 4000 miles, there are no mechanical issues as 
yet)
No scientific numbers, just seat of the pants observation.
Granted we ride conservative, not at the speeds needed to top ten big rides. 
But there is no reason a horse selected for and trained by a heavyweight 
can't have an equal chance to complete a ride such as Tevis. But the 
training with weight is necessary.
Nancy Mitts

>From: Deanna German <dgerman@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: dgerman@earthlink.net
>To: Howard4567@aol.com, ridecamp@endurance.net, Tivers@aol.com,        
>suendavid@worldnet.att.net
>Subject: RC:  RC: Re: overweight an issue?
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:44:55 -0400
>
>Howard wrote:
> >The weight of the rider is a factor in determining best conditioned for
>good
> >reason.  Why does my daughter's horse easily complete 50's while mine
>has
> >great difficulty even though both horses train exactly the same.  In
>fact, I
> >take my horse out more often because I'm obsessed with riding while the
>kid
> >isn't (yet)  It's cause she weighs 75 pounds and I add on another
>hundred to
> >that when I mount up.
>
>Hey, Howard,
>Maybe your daughter's horse is more suited to the sport than yours. Able
>to be in top shape faster and naturally carrying a bigger "gas tank."
>Maybe her horse is better conformed. Maybe she's a better rider than
>you. What's your horse's body condition score (I admit, I don't know my
>horse's nor how to measure that, although I'd like to know) compared to
>Rebel's. I'm just throwing out ideas here. A unscientific way to get
>more information would be to switch horses every other ride for a few
>rides and see what happens. Try to eliminate as many variables as
>possible and acknowledge the ones that still exist.
>
>I don't think anyone's debating that rider weight is not a factor. The
>debate is that rider weight is not as big of a factor as  "common sense"
>would indicate. Stated another way, there is at least one research study
>that shows that rider weight is not the only indicator of success
>(completions of Tevis in 3 years of the event) or failure (metabolic
>fatigue and failure to complete). (Am I correct, Susan?? I don't want to
>misrepresent your data and analysis.) There are lots of other variables
>to consider. There might be variables out there that give reason for
>further study.
>
>A study of top 10 or top 5 horses might yield different findings.
>
>And, Howard, you must remember that BC is not judged on the entire
>completing field. I don't know that it would be all that relevant even
>if it were because the arguement would be made that a slower finishing
>time would stress a horse less. The only way to truly judge BC of a
>field of entries is to ask the horses to complete a distance under the
>same conditions thus stressing them equally. Impossible to achieve, but
>this is what we TRY to do in (non-NATRC) CTR where the horse is judged
>and placed based on condition. Heavyweights and middleweights do win
>CTRs occasionally, although not usually. So weight does seem to be a
>limiting factor, but not the only limiting factor.
>
>The whole thing is still darned fascinating to ponder. From either side
>of the pasture fence.
>
>Deanna (infinitely more qualified to debate Howard rather than the
>"Titans")

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com