Re: ti's "article"

["Susan Evans Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

>Ah, but we're not talking about ultrasound data, are we? We're talking
about a
>somewhat subjective evaluation with nothing quantitative about it.

We're talking about subjective evaluation validated by quantitative
ultrasound data.


>
>Let's say you get a horse in poor body condition--this happens a lot with
TBs
>off the track.

OK, the horse gains 150 pounds in weight and goes from a condition score of
whatever to whatever.  Say 3 to 5.  I'm assuming the horse isn't just
standing around in a stall doing zippity-doo-dah while he's gaining weight,
you're conditioning him as well, right?  So sure, there's muscle gain there,
which is being fueled by sufficient energy in his diet.

But on the other hand, I can also take an emaciated horse, feed it up while
it stands in a small pen to get it to a CS of 5 or whatever, and still have
almost no muscle there at all, because I didn't work the horse to illicit
muscle cell hypertrophy.  The horse has a condition score of 5, but I doubt
he's gonna go out and win any races.

Condition scoring only evaluates based on the visual and manually palpated
cover over certain anatomical areas.  It doesn't include any assessment of
musculature at all (at least not if you're doing it right), ONLY the
relative cover over certain skeletal landmarks, like spine, tuber ischii,
withers, etc.

Susan G




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=