Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: Re: Definitions and a time out



Yup, Kirsten, you summed it all up very nicely. :-)

Susan G
----- Original Message -----
From: Kirsten Price <splash@dakotacom.net>
To: <Tivers@aol.com>; <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>;
<ralston@aesop.rutgers.edu>; <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions and a time out


> Okay, I'll step up to bat here.
>
> Tom, I think a large part of this discussion with Susan revolves around a
> lack of understanding as to what the body condition scores represent in
the
> real world.  Having seen Susan's presentation, including slides of some of
> the horses and the corresponding body condition scores....
>
> Yes, there are people who attempt to ride horses in "the walking hat rack"
> condition.  Now, a 3.5 is not in danger of starving or anything, but they
do
> have very obvious ribs and protruding hips. Susan supplied photos of
various
> example horses from Tevis to illustrate the condition scores.
>
> My personal thought is that at least some of this general lack of concern
> over body fat stores results from the old beliefs that a horse needed to
be
> downright skinny to be a successful endurance horse.  I still hear these
> comments from people who haven't been involved in the sport since the
1970s
> or so. "The skinnier the better."  It's also just darn hard to keep weight
> on many horses while asking for the kind of energy output required to
> condition and compete. Until Susan's study, people did not realize how
> important adequate body fat stores were.
>
> Susan's study clearly showed that when you were talking about a condition
> score of around 3 or even 4, those horses had a significantly reduced
> completion rate than those horses with a condition score of 5 or 5.5.
This
> isn't a difference between obeisity and anorexia... just a difference
> between adequate body fat stores and inadequate body fat stores to
complete
> a very difficult 100 mile course.
>
> Having adequate body fat stores was a sufficiently critical factor to
> outweigh (pardon the intentional pun) any other factors that we might
> logically think contribute (and probably do contribute) to the relative
> success or completion potential of a horse/rider combination. That doesn't
> mean that those factors aren't a factor or aren't important. But, I think
I
> can sum Susan's conclusions up (pardon me Susan) by saying that if your
> horse has inadequate body fat stores, it won't matter whether you're a
> featherweight or a heavyweight, a good rider or a sack of potatos. In
either
> case he's going to run out of gas.  Maybe he runs out of gas earlier with
> the heavyweight or the sack-'o-potatos, but either way... he doesn't make
> the finish line.
>
> I'm not fat and I'm in good shape (okay, okay... like every one else, I
> would like to shed 10 lbs).  But I will never be a featherweight (I'm
> 5'10").  That part, I can't adjust.  But, I can certainly improve my
riding
> skill (can't we all). I can also make sure that my horse has proper
> nutrition; I can pay attention to hydration and feeding strategies; AND I
> can make sure that my horse has ADEQUATE body fat stores to see him
through
> a 100-mile ride (whenever I actually get to do one.... he's only just
> turning 5).
>
> Bottom line, all of the things you (Tom) discuss certainly have an impact
> (at least intuitively where there are no studies as yet to back it up).
> However, all of those things you mention won't, by themselves, yield a
> completion in the face of inadequate body fat.  If you look at the overall
> appearance of the horses with condition scores of 3.5 ... I'll bet you'll
> agree that the horse looks too dang skinny.  Earlier you said that you or
> your UAE clients prefer horses running "lighter" (forgive me if it's an
> inaccurate paraphrase).  But from the photos and video (and I admit, it's
> not a lot) I've seen from top UAE horses in general, they still look like
> they're in the range of at least a 4 and I'd say 4.5 or 5 looks pretty
> common. My guess is that you're simply not running into the problem with
the
> horses you are working with. And, no other studies have been done looking
at
> completion rate from the perspective that Susan's did.
>
> I vote that the comparisons between the studies you cite and Susans are
> similar to the old "Apples and Oranges" saw.  They just aren't looking at
> the same thing!
>
> Consider it a bunt and I'm waiting at first base for the next at bat.
>
> Kirsten
>
> Kirsten Price
> (Ex-geologist/biologist and current poor law student)
> Tucson AZ
>
>
> > In a message dated 7/27/00 8:42:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > suendavid@worldnet.att.net writes:
> >
> > << Yes, I think that's an important point.  I absolutely agree a pasture
> >  puddin' would be at a disadvantage, probably heat-related.  When I say
> "good
> >  condition", I mean a condition score of 5, just as Sarah describes, no
> hips
> >  or pins sticking out, and ribs easily felt but hard to really see.  As
> >  compared to an emaciated horse that looks like a walking hat rack.
> >
> >  Susan G >>
> >
> > Do people actually attempt to ride horses in that condition?
> >
> > ti
> >
> >
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> > Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >
> >
>



    Check it Out!    

Home    Events    Groups    Rider Directory    Market    RideCamp    Stuff

Back to TOC