<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: [RC] weight aint that simple (was Mad Science)
Ridecamp@Endurance.Net

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:30:22 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: [RC] Trailers
  • - Diane Farnsworth
  • Prev by Date: Re: [RC] Reply/ Finding your saddle size
  • - G. L. Patterson

    [RC] weight aint that simple (was Mad Science) - Susan Garlinghouse


    >So, I don't see how your comparison with a Subaru and >a supercharged 454
    dually (you must be doing very well >btw to own such a vehicle, lol) equates
    to my heart rate >study.  I'm not comparing two different horses, I'm just
    >comparing the heart rates from the same horse with two
    
    The point I was trying to make was that you need to look at alot of things
    besides just rpms to determine strain on the system.  But, read on...
    
    
    
    >  I really don't think it's that far fetched to think that a >heavier rider
    makes a greater demand from a horse.
    
    Nope, it isn't.  BUT, there's alot more to it than just measuring oxygen
    demand (which is what you're really measuring with your HRM experiment.
    Yes, you add more weight to the total system and it takes more energy to
    move the horse forward.  That makes a big difference if you're sprinting
    flat out for six furlongs.  Over fifty or a hundred miles, the differences
    flatten out enough that it makes very little difference.  In fact, the
    energy requirement difference between the same horse carrying a 160-lb rider
    versus a 210-lb rider over a fifty mile course is only 9%.  Again, if you're
    sprinting the entire thing, it matters, mostly because your energy
    substrates and available supply of both is an issue.  If you don't happen to
    ride under the belief that the second place horse is the first loser, than
    the energetics aren't enough to matter.
    
    So let's look at weight a different way.  Instead of putting a heavier rider
    on the same horse, let's say you put an extra fifty pounds of weight onto
    the horse himself instead.  That should raise his heart rate as well and be
    a hindrance, right?  But you can't say that necessarily, either.  If the
    horse is underweight and in negative energy balance, then that extra fifty
    pounds of weight is much more likely to improve his performance enormously,
    including lowering his heart rate rather than raising it.  I have data on
    about a thousand hundred mile horses to back that statement up.  What if you
    put fifty pounds onto the same horse, except that now he's on the chubby
    side, plus rode him in hot, humid weather?  No doubt about it, that extra
    fifty pounds is going to just add insulation and make it more difficult for
    heat dissipation to occur.  In that case, heart rate is going to rise.
    
    Another example---if you've done a good job preparing your horse for a ride,
    you've done everything you can to stuff a bale of forage down his face and
    got him so full of water he's sloshing.  Between total gut fill and water,
    that accounts for roughly 200-300 lbs of weight in the GI tract.  Lotta
    weight.  So we could improve performance enormously by not feeding the horse
    for a week before a ride, right?  Anybody here wanna raise their hand if
    they thinks that's a good idea for an endurance horse?
    
    So, don't worry Howard, I'm not arguing with you, just debating something I
    happen to find interesting.  Weight does absolutely make a difference---it
    adds to the heat load, adds to biomechanical stress, adds to energy and
    oxygen requirements.  No worries there.  I think the take-home point of any
    research project---from yours up to the million dollar projects---is the So
    What factor.  What's the take home message?  Does the extra ten heart beats
    per minute (or whatever) matter in the big picture?  Is the winner of any
    race going to be the one with the lowest heart rate?  Nope.  To an endurance
    horse, there are so many other factors besides weight affecting the total
    picture, that you just can't take one single parameter (like HR) and make a
    sweeping conclusion from that.  It just aint that simple.
    
    But, I truly applaud you for having the curiousity to look at things like
    that.  It was that kind of curiousity of wanting to know If and Why that
    keeps most of the crazed researchers out there going. :-)
    
    >  If BTW, is Howard the bull still a bull, or is he now a steer?  Just
    curious.
    
    He went home, minus gonads.  Let that be a lesson for you.<g>
    
    Susan G
    
    
    
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
     Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
     Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    
    

    Replies
    Re: [RC] Mad Science, Howard Bramhall