Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev]  [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]  [Thread Next]  [Date Index]  [Thread Index]  [Author Index]  [Subject Index]

Re: Your study



Hi Terry,

I hope it's okay, I CC'ed my response to your very good questions to the
whole group.


>         1.  would it be possible to give the percentage of horses in the study
> that fell into each category (1.5, 3.0, etc.). It would be a little
> more relevant to me if I knew that of the 340 horses in the study, 15%
> of them were 5.5 (100% completion), as opposed to 2% were only 5.5.  I
> know when I do the stats for my ride, and I do the percentage of
> different breeds that complete, if I have only one standardbred that
> enters and it completes, it would be 100% standardsbreds completed the
> ride, when we both know that would be very misleading.  Just a
> suggestion, but to me it would be very helpful.

Sure.  A few of the very low scores only had a few horses in each
category, the higher categories had many more horses---as a whole, it
was a statistically viable population.  More comments below.

CS:		#	%of total population	average completion rate:
1.5		2	.55			0.0%
2.0		3	.83			0.0
2.5		5	1.39			0.0
3.0		12	3.33			9.1
3.5		14	3.89			57.1
4.0		96	26.7			60.1
4.5		90	25.0			62.2
5.0		128	35.55			90.09
5.5		10	2.8			100.0

So, you're right, I wouldn't make a widesweeping statement based only on
the performance of the relatively few very-thin horses I saw, but they
become more relevant in relation to the general upward trend as
condition score improves.  The most telling was the regression analysis,
which looked at the population as a whole, as well as the consistently
good performance of horses that had condition scores that were moderate
to good, and had very large numbers in the population group as well. 
When we did the statistics for our study, we used extremely stringent
tests, and the results were tested out as being viable results.

I haven't yet analyzed the data I recorded this past weekend, but it
looks like the results will substantiate the prior results, except in
one area.  This year I measured 10 horses with condition scores of 5.5
and of those 10, they seemed to fall into two "sub-categories"...horses
that were in good condition AND were incredibly fit (horses like Magnet
and Patric), and others that were in good condition, but didn't have the
underlying muscle.  I think you have to differentiate between horses
that are able to maintain weight while being conditioned to Tevis-level
condition, and horses that are in good (fat) condition because they're
just not out burning all those many calories to get into fit enough
condition for a bad-ass ride like Tevis.  So performance for 5.5's this
year will not be 100%, but it was very interesting still to notice that
average condition scores among the top ten finishers was consistently
still quite high---haven't crunched the numbers yet, but my guess is
close to 5, or just under.


> 
>         2.  The next question relates to both of your findings (i.e. no
> relationship to rider/horse weight ratio, and horse's with higher fat
> content do better).  Is there any correlation that heavier riders bring
> lower valued horses (2.5, 3.0) because the horses have to work more in
> conditioning to carry a heavier rider, so that it may be harder to keep
> weight up == so that heavier riders do not finish as well. 

That I don't know, I didn't analyze for that specifically.  But it's a
good point.  Off the top of my head, I would have to say there were
still plenty of thin horses belonging to FW or LW riders.  However, when
estimating the energy required to move a given mass down a trail you
also have to look at not just rider weight but total mass of horse
weight plus rider weight, as energetically, there is little difference
between the two---Pagan and Hintz did some work that demonstrated that
energy use is the same to move "X" number of kgs between a horse that
weighs 500 kg w/o a rider; and a horse that weighs only 400 kg himself
but is carrying a 100 kg rider, etc.


 Or does your
> study indicate that heavier riders (200+) finish just as well as 120 lb.
> riders?

Our analysis indicated that no matter how you analyzed "weight", HW
riders were just as likely to complete, and/or place well, as a FW, LW
or MW rider.  This year we're analyzing specifically to see how weight
factors affect lameness pulls, so I'll let you know what we find out.
> 
>         If you could send me a full copy of your study I would appreciate it.
> Also, any updates after this ride.
> 
>         Terry Woolley Howe
>         P.O. Box 1569
>         San Marcos, Ca 92079
>         760/489-9394

On its way.  The article was originally planned to be included in this
year's Tevis Forum but somehow didn't make it there in all the
confusion.  So Larry Suddjian and I agreed we'd shoot it over to
Endurance News for publication there instead, and I'll write an article
on this year's study for the next Tevis Forum.  I was handing out copies
of it at Robie, if anyone else wants a copy, too, I still have a few
left.


> 
> P.S.  When are you going to get down here to do one of our rides?

Geez, after watching Tevis, I'm all fired up again to get old Catoface
back in shape, not that he's ever that far out.  Hopefully, y'all will
see us at Lynn Glazer's Norco ride and isn't Manzanita coming up?

Seeya,

Susan Garlinghouse



    Check it Out!    

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff

Back to TOC