Re: RC: Re: Tieing up

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/19/00 11:23:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, Tivers writes:

<< << Actually, Tom, it is a phenomenon that many of us have observed for 
years--including the fact that in some families the resting HR drops with 
conditioning and in some families it does not.  (Genetics?)>
 
 Is this data you're talking about? Or are you just kidding?  >>

Have I done a controlled study?  No.  Am I kidding?  No.  But have observed 
two groups of 10 or more horses by two different stallions, ALL of which had 
phenomenal recoveries--the offspring of one ALL developed HR's well down into 
the 20's as they got fit, and the offspring of the other ALL remained with 
resting HR's in the mid to high 30's.  Have seen the same with a few 
grandchildren and other close relatives of both horses, too.  If I thought it 
meant anything in terms of performance, I'd consider it worth study, but 
since all individuals by both stallions had excellent recoveries when fit and 
all performed well, I didn't suggest it to any of my academic friends.  
Perhaps when we fine-tune even more, it would be worth a look.  Just one more 
of those observations from field grunts that spark the "real" research when 
we ask "why?" or "is this significant?"  While field observation is hardly 
the same as double-blind studies, when carried on over a long period of time 
with a lot of individuals, it tends to have some sorts of validity.  It 
doesn't explain "why" but it sure gives the research folks some good hints 
where to look.  A good scientist does not belittle field observation, but 
rather accepts it for what it is, complete with its limitations.

Heidi