Withers

[sbloom]

View attachment 124025

Its like comparing these two athletes (one marathon runner and one sprinter). Very different types of fitness. One could not do what the other does.

That IS comparing apples to oranges, we are asking horses to do something unnatural and we all know that we shouldn't be riding them really, that saddle fitting is only ever mitigation. And the human athletes have a choice about the wear and tear on their bodies, a huge factor for most sports people.

I know there's a big debate about use of the word atrophy, many of the people I work with would use hypertrophy and hypotrophy, as both are important. Where there is lack there is always excess somewhere else.

 

[Katieg123]

That IS comparing apples to oranges, we are asking horses to do something unnatural and we all know that we shouldn't be riding them really, that saddle fitting is only ever mitigation. And they have a choice about the wear and tear on their bodies, which is a huge factor for most sports people.

I know there's a big debate about use of the word atrophy, many of the people I work with would use hypertrophy and hypotrophy, as both are important. Where there is lack there is always excess somewhere else.

If the conversation is to do with how ethical eventing at that level is then that's another discussion entirely.

If its to do with how a body looks when its incredibly fit then this is relevant.

 

[DabDab]

View attachment 124025

Its like comparing these two athletes (one marathon runner and one sprinter). Very different types of fitness. One could not do what the other does.

Surely the question is more a case of functionality for a very specific purpose vs generally healthy. Both of these human musculatures is extremely functional for that particular purpose, but is one healthier for the individual than the other? Are either of them?
And that's really the nub of the discussion, if a horse is highly functional for a particular discipline does that automatically mean they are healthy, fit and without significant pain or discomfort?

Speaking personally, there have certainly been times in my life when I have been physically functional but not particularly healthy in terms of my musculature, because bodies are amazing things that can compensate in all sorts of ways. And then there have been other times in my life when I have been similarly functional but a lot healthier and more comfortable muscles-wise (because I've actually treated/resolved the frozen shoulder, poor posture, back spasms, various nerve impingements etc).

I agree that a lot of the sm accounts talking about this stuff are overly simplistic, use odd images and can be scientifically a bit all over the place, but I don't think that questioning the age old assumption that high performing always = healthy is necessarily a stupid thing to be questioning.

 

[Katieg123]

Surely the question is more a case of functionality for a very specific purpose vs generally healthy. Both of these human musculatures is extremely functional for that particular purpose, but is one healthier for the individual than the other? Are either of them?
And that's really the nub of the discussion, if a horse is highly functional for a particular discipline does that automatically mean they are healthy, fit and without significant pain or discomfort?

Speaking personally, there have certainly been times in my life when I have been physically functional but not particularly healthy in terms of my musculature, because bodies are amazing things that can compensate in all sorts of ways. And then there have been other times in my life when I have been similarly functional but a lot healthier and more comfortable muscles-wise (because I've actually treated/resolved the frozen shoulder, poor posture, back spasms, various nerve impingements etc).

I agree that a lot of the sm accounts talking about this stuff are overly simplistic, use odd images and can be scientifically a bit all over the place, but I don't think that questioning the age old assumption that high performing always = healthy is necessarily a stupid thing to be questioning.

Again, the ethicality of it is certainly a valid point but not what is being discussed in this thread. My point is that all bodies can look different (and objectively worse) when extremely fit.

5* event horses bodies' are certainly functioning for a very specific purpose and that is why they look the way they do.

 

[stangs]

Had a look for more objective ways of scoring atrophy than drawing arrows but all I could find was these two papers. Leaving their scoring systems here in case anyone fancies trying them on their own horse and reporting back.

Spoiler: Walker et al., 2016

Spoiler: Herbst et al., 2021

They found that scoring for abdominals wasn't reliable like the others, so they omitted it from the scoring system.

The key thing to note is that both systems (admittedly the latter was inspired by the former) require palpations to assess the horse, and assessment is done while the horse is standing square. That makes the validity of Instagram posts, which are just photos of the horse in movement, pretty lacking. And there's still limitations with these systems, because they've not been tested on horses doing fast work (the former was done, though not tested, on dressage horses from Novice to GP; the latter was tested on a variety of breeds, but none of the horses were in work).