Re: heart rates & recovery

["Robert Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

One thing to remember is that we have a very extensive data base on the use
of heart rate.  Realize though that the current  acceptable heart rate level
is VERY different than what we used to consider OK.

It might be interesting to compare rides back when we used 72 bpm and some
rides higher. The times for rides might be found to be more conservative but
then twenty years ago we did not have the nutritional experience either.

I can remember when 72 was common and we used bicarbonate of soda as an
additive. We fed just the basic hay and oats and had thin horses. They
survived back then so I guess the horses were tougher than the ones that are
being ridden now.

With the advent of modern technology I believe that the sport has gotten
more intense and less fun for everyone.

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenda R. Snodgrass <grs@TheNetEffect.com>
To: Ridecamp <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Date: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: heart rates & recovery


>Oops, I'm afraid I misphrased what I was thinking when I wrote this:
>
>> I may be speaking out of my depth here, since I'm still new to endurance,
>> but I don't think a horse is ever pulled or passed based on the heart
rate
>> alone <SNIP>
>
>Of course horses are pulled on the heart rate alone because that's the
>AERC rule, but horses are rarely passed on heart rate alone, no?  Or do
>they have to be passed if they aren't lame and the HR meets criteria?
>
>What I meant to explore is the underlying principle of the established
>rule:  heart rate is used as the definitive criteria because it's an
>easily determined, objective measurement that has been tracked for many
>years now on endurance horses doing endurance rides. Putting that rule
>aside for purposes of this discussion, a horse probably wouldn't be pulled
>or passed on heart rate alone.  It holds prominence on the list of things
>to look at because of its uniquely objective and obvious nature. Can CK
>levels and hydration meet those same tests of objectivity and easy
>measurement?
>
>I think Linda's comments about building a database on these other
>parameters are right on point.  Certainly we don't want to turn our backs
>on additional information, but I'm very sceptical about discarding HR as a
>measure of fitness to continue, at least at this point in time.
>
>Glenda & Lakota
>Mobile, AL
>AERC # M18819 & H27310
>SE Region
>
>
>
>