|
|
Murray, J. K., Senior, J. M., & Singer, E. R. (2006). A comparison of cross-country recovery rates at CCI 2* with and without steeplechase competitions. Equine Vet J Suppl, (36), 133–138.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Short format 3-day events were introduced in 2004. Anecdotal reports suggested that horses were more tired on completion of the cross-country phase of short format events when compared with horses completing the cross-country phase of long format competitions, despite the absence of Phases A, B and C. OBJECTIVES: To compare the physiological parameters and haematological parameters of horses that had completed the cross-country phase of a short format (SF) and a long format (LF) CCI 2* competition. METHODS: During a CCI 2* competition 69 competitors took part in the short format and 74 in the long format competition. Long format competitors completed Phases A, B, C and D and short format competitors completed Phase D only. Phase D (the cross-country course) was identical for both competitions. Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures and post hoc tests were used to compare temperature, pulse and respiration rates of horses competing in both types of competition. T tests were used to compare mean lactate and electrolyte concentrations, while U-Mann Whitney tests were used to compare CK and AST levels measured in horses competing in the short and long formats of the event. RESULTS: Training schedules, age and previous competition experience were not significantly different between horses competing in the SF and LF competitions. On completion of Phase D, SF horses had significantly higher PCV and significantly lower ionised calcium concentrations when compared with LF horses. LF horses had significantly higher heart rates than SF horses 10 min prior to starting Phase D and immediately after completing Phase D; however, no other significant differences were found between the 2 groups of horses. CONCLUSIONS: Only weak evidence was found to support the hypothesis that the workload for the horse in a SF CCI 2* competition is significantly different when compared to the LF CCI 2* competition. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: There is no beneficial or detrimental effect on horses that complete short format CCI 2* competitions as compared to those that complete long format CCI 2* competitions but further research is required into the physiological response of horses at CCI 3* and CCI 4* short format competitions.
|
|
|
|
Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan, M. M., Spierenburg, A. J., & van den Broek, E. T. W. (2006). The workload of riding-school horses during jumping.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING THE STUDY: As there are no reports on the real workload of horses that jump fences, this study was undertaken in riding-school horses. OBJECTIVE: To compare the workload of horses jumping a course of fences with that of horses cantering over the same course at the same average speed without jumping fences. The workload variables included heart rate (HR), packed cell volume (PCV), acid-base balance (venous pH, pCO2, HCO3-) and blood lactate (LA), glucose, total protein and electrolyte concentrations. METHODS: Eight healthy riding-school horses performed test A (a course of approximately 700 m with 12 jumps from 0.8-1.0 m high at an average speed of approximately 350 m/min) and test B (same course at the same speed, but without the rails) in a crossover study with at least 4 h between the 2 tests. Before each test the horses were fitted with a heart rate meter (Polar Electro). Blood samples were taken from the jugular vein at rest prior to the test, after warm-up before starting the course, immediately after the course and after recovery. All samples were analysed immediately. RESULTS: The mean +/- s.d maximal HR (beats/min) during the course (184 +/- 17 and 156 +/- 21, respectively) and the mean HR after recovery (75 +/- 6 and 63 +/- 7, respectively) were significantly higher in test A compared to test B (P = 0.001 and P = 0.007 respectively). The mean LA concentrations after the course and after recovery (mmol/l) were significantly higher in test A (3.6 +/- 2.7 and 1.0 +/- 0.9, respectively) compared to test B (0.9 +/- 0.5 and 0.3 +/- 0.1, respectively), (P = 0.016 and P = 0.048 respectively). The mean PCV (I/l) after the course and after recovery was also significantly different between tests A (0.48 +/- 0.04 and 0.39 +/- 0.03, respectively) and B (0.42 +/- 0.04 and 0.36 +/- 0.03, respectively) (P<0.01). The mean pH and the mean HCO3- (mmol/l) after the course were significantly lower in test A (7.40 +/- 0.04 and 28.9 +/- 1.4, respectively) compared to test B (7.45 +/- 0.03 and 30.4 +/- 2.3, respectively) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that in riding-school horses jumping fences, even at a low level competition, provokes a significant workload compared to cantering the same distance and speed without fences. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: This study makes it clear that the extra workload of jumping fences should be taken into account in the training programmes of jumping horses. Further research with more experienced horses jumping higher fences will reveal the workload for top-level jumping horses.
|
|
