Re: RC: Definitions and a time out

[Sarah Ralston <ralston@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU>]

Ti wrote:
>But there is a cascade of fueling priorities, catabolizing tissue protein is 
>at the bottom of the list.

Exactly as I had stated in the next sentence!!:

>In a non-exercising, healthy horse, body fat is 
>the store of choice, with muscle protein and glycogen
>kicking in only if the deficit is extreme, if 
>Fat breakdown is somehow inhibited (high glucose/insulin), 
>or in certain disease states. In the exercising horse
>working aerobically both glucose (carbohydrate) 
>and fats are used. The fats come from circulating fatty
>acids from the absorption in the gut of fats and
>from body fat breakdown, be it from fat stores or triglycerides
> stored in the muscle.>

>Again, a cascade here, with stored triglycedrides the much-preferred fuel.

But in relatively limited supply relative to the energy needs
during a 100 mile race, even if "packed" in as you hope to do. 

>(this was relative to Fling carrying more weight)
>What do you think would happen if she were carrying 100 to 150 more lbs of 
>fat?

On top of the extra 75 she is already carrying relative to last year?
Nothing-I wouldn't compete her if she were rolling in fat!

>Again, no need for another comarative anatomy course--you're forgetting, 
>entirely, the FFAs contributed by forage. 

Eek! That's MY line! I may have made some progress!
Only you still have it wrong. You don't get free fatty acids (FFA)
from forage fermentation, you get Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA), which, 
I repeat for the umpteenth time, are utilized via the glucose, not fat,
pathways.

>Give me a break! Who's talking about greyhounds? No need to distort my words 
>to prove your point--bad debating tactic--you sound like Al Gore.

Simmer down. I was using the greyhound analogy in reference to the
appearance of
the racehorses you described as preferring, and I quote from
a previous point you made in this discussion ">still not enamoured of 
carrying much in the way of body fat into an endurance race." 
 
> and hopefully are fast enough to
> get across the finish before they run out of fuel.>

>Again, this is your fantasy, what you'd like me to be saying, so that you
can 
>have an easy target to attack. 

No, Tom. You stated previously that the fat depleted horses totally gave
out after 80 KM,
even though some of them actually completed first before crashing.
Apparently this
experience is why you are now interested at least in intramuscular
triglycerides.

> NONE of this is all or none>
>Then why are you presenting it as such?

Am I? Anybody else out there think I am presenting it as all or none?

Also, with respect to Wolfgang's European (South African?)studies discussed
previously:
I am sure they were extremely well done and can provide a wealth of
information. Did they look to see if there were significant 
differences between the early 1985 data and the later stuff? We keep
saying we are going farther and faster-would be nice to have some validation
of that. However, What was the terrain of these rides? From
the speeds reported I have a feeling they were relatively flat. 

I have tried to point out repeatedly that in relatively flat 
races the "racehorse" mentality for those that want to win is 
appropriate because they are able to go faster and are closer to 
the racehorse metabolic demands. In technically difficult rides, 
like the Tevis and the OD, where speed can literally kill 
if you go over the cliff, you are talking a whole different ball 
game where a number of factors suddenly become
more important than the rider's actual weight and how much glycogen and
triglycerides were packed into the muscle before the ride.
Wolfgang's assertion that a rider over 100 kg can not win a race may be
true in 
European races but I think Earl Baxter, Boyd Zontelli, Sandy Brown 
(but then Ruby is a mule!), Dinah and Steve Rojek (though he's 
only a middleweight) and many other successful USA heavy and middleweight
competitors
provide proof that they can win here in the US, especially in the technically
tough rides. Neither Susan nor I dispute the fact that the light and
featherweight 
riders have an advantage in terms of causing less work output over the 
same course as a heavier rider. Look at our team going to Dubai! No heavy
weights
there-but it is a flat out race, not a technical course. Our point in that
discussion 
was that just because you are heavy doesn't mean you can't be competitive, 
given the proper conditioning, management and horse (and luck on the
trail<bg>)!

Sarah and Fling