In a message dated 8/3/2005 8:19:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jlong@xxxxxxxx writes:
None of
the advanced training or monitoring techniques such as those Tom has been
talking about are necessary to complete endurance rides, although many
can be helpful. Nor are special nutritional supplements
necessary. Good basic nutrituion, a moderate conditioning program,
and sensible riding are plenty, even for 100-mile
rides.
I would like to know if there are any studies that show how equine athletes
have improved their performances since we have started all the fancy feeding,
electrolyting, etc.
In looking at Tevis stats, I don't see any dramatic differences in winning
times since we have supposedly learned how to feed and supplement "better". In
fact, there has never been another Witezarif who won 6 Tevis Cups in the 1970's
when we were apparently ignorant on how to feed and condition an endurance
horse.
The same goes for TB race horses. The Kentucky Derby was won by a horse
named Old Rosebud in 1914 in 2:03. Horses are still winning that race in about
the same times (forget about Secretariat... he really set a record of 1:59) and
I imagine they also are being trained and fed more scientifically than in
1914.
So, could somebody show me how having a nervous breakdown over worrying
about how to feed, condition, get all the fancy monitors, etc. has made things
better.
