Re: [Fwd: Re: Nutrition again]

Tivers@aol.com
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:13:23 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 97-01-05 15:24:39 EST, you write:

<< a
better solution with their own horses (being "innovative", I guess some
would call it) and reporting on their results just for general interest,
HOWEVER, such results really can't presented as The Final Word without
some statistically viable work first.

Happy New Year,

Susan Evans
>>

I take it, then, that none of the information presented in this forum is
worthwhile from your standpoint, since most of it is anecdotal and one-rat
research. Myself, I'm not so convinced that big studies financed by big
grants, with dozens of academics hovering around interpreting results have
any more validity than collected experiences. For example, let me assign you
the task of designing a training protocol that will deliver a Thoroughbred
racehorse that can safely deliver a 1:37 mile on a decent racetrack--in, say
9 months. Several thousands did so in 1996, yet there is not a single paper
or study describing the protocol. What you're saying is that this is
impossible. What I am saying is that if you wait for the science, you'll wait
forever--no one ever will design such a protocol if the basis of it is "known
science". In this case, at least, the chicken very definately comes before
the egg. And, in fact, most useful chickens come long before the scientific
eggs.

ti