Thanks for the effort

[SuzieQNutter]

@Fellbutbackup if you found the answer, why don’t you share it with us?

[JB]

@Fellbutbackup

I didn’t agree with the information presented. It went against my training. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that the information would apply differently for horses. Hence the attempts at clarification. Unfortunately, the further we went, the more I found myself confirming the knowledge from my training. In the end, I got the information I was seeking elsewhere. Both times, actually.

There was no intention to make you feel stupid. If that was indeed the case, my apologies.

I never said you made me feel stupid

You don’t agree with the leading research on horses.

Awesome. Why are you on this board?

Maybe you would like to enlighten us as to what you learned that disagrees with this special training in people, this special training you’re so secretive about, yet seem to have a fascination of others’ training.

You know horses aren’t people, right?

Science doesn’t care whether you agree or not. Your medical training in the human field helps understand terms and basic biological concepts across species, but it does not mean you can extrapolate details from people to horses. Surely there was a concept you were taught?

Do you know why dogs and horses get different doses of firocoxib?

[BoyleHeightsKid]

@TheMoo

@Fellbutbackup in both threads JB has shown a level of patience that is rare. You claim you want scientific answers from experts but you cannot figure out the difference between a ration balancer and a supplement? It’s a pretty basic concept and yet you struggled with it. No one can help you on these forums because I’m not entirely convinced YOU even know what your asking.

It’s okay to be new to horses, nutrition, or whatever. Just don’t pretend to have more knowledge than you do. I read JB’s posts all the time because I always learn something and I’ve been keeping horses and riding for 30 years.

JB is priceless and has endless amounts of knowledge. I always learn something from her and when it comes to nutrition I am no dummy.

OP… the people here really know what they’re talking about… you will do you and your horse a great service to put your pride aside. Listen and learn. I can’t believe a topic about vegetable oil turned into this :rolleyes:

[Texarkana]

@SuzieQNutter

@Fellbutbackup if you found the answer, why don’t you share it with us?

Because there isn’t one.

[JB]

@BoyleHeightsKid

JB is priceless and has endless amounts of knowledge. I always learn something from her and when it comes to nutrition I am no dummy.

Oh believe me, there are ends! :lol: :lol: But thank you - I work hard to be sure what I comment on is backed by science, and if not, then try to make it clear it’s my opinion or theory or whatever

[GoodTimes]

@BoyleHeightsKid

JB is priceless and has endless amounts of knowledge. I always learn something from her and when it comes to nutrition I am no dummy.

OP… the people here really know what they’re talking about… you will do you and your horse a great service to put your pride aside. Listen and learn. I can’t believe a topic about vegetable oil turned into this :rolleyes:

I’m not even sure if this thread was about vegetable oil

[BoyleHeightsKid]

@JB

Oh believe me, there are ends! :lol: :lol: But thank you - I work hard to be sure what I comment on is backed by science, and if not, then try to make it clear it’s my opinion or theory or whatever

Well, whatever the end it is I haven’t seen it yet!!! We appreciate all of your carefully researched information!:encouragement:

[BoyleHeightsKid]

@GoodTimes

I’m not even sure if this thread was about vegetable oil

I’m not sure either, and reading OP’s other threads, I’m not even sure why OP is here.

[Amy3996]

@Fellbutbackup

I am a brand new member. My expectations were not met…

I expected a higher level of thought. One involving discussion. Not regurgitation from Horseu.com and an ancient textbook, with interpretations that do not show correct understanding.

This is, at the end of the day, an open (and relatively anonymous) Internet forum. Some very knowledgeable and gracious (looking at you, @JB) members have attempted to decipher the information you offered to provide guidance.

If you want a “higher level of thought”, consult PubMed, other vet journals, your local equine vet school, etc. If you’re so inexplicably dissatisfied with the information you’re getting here, look elsewhere. It’s that simple.

[Simkie]

@Amy3996

If you want a “higher level of thought”, consult PubMed, other vet journals, your local equine vet school, etc. If you’re so inexplicably dissatisfied with the information you’re getting here, look elsewhere. It’s that simple.

What’s so curious is that the data shared from those sources “goes against [her] training.” Sooooo the OP is anti science…? Man, there’s just not much anyone can do with that.

[TheMoo]

We have had a couple new(old) posters vague posting about stuff and then posting gotcha posts. Or trying.

[Fellbutbackup]

@JB

I never said you made me feel stupid

You don’t agree with the leading research on horses.

Awesome. Why are you on this board?

Maybe you would like to enlighten us as to what you learned that disagrees with this special training in people, this special training you’re so secretive about, yet seem to have a fascination of others’ training.

You know horses aren’t people, right?

Science doesn’t care whether you agree or not. Your medical training in the human field helps understand terms and basic biological concepts across species, but it does not mean you can extrapolate details from people to horses. Surely there was a concept you were taught?

Do you know why dogs and horses get different doses of firocoxib?

We strongly disagree on the concept of “leading research.” Referencing a 10-20 year old textbook is using extremely outdated research. For some concepts even three-five years is pushing it. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, after consulting horse studies, only ended up confirming you were wrong multiple times.

That is OK. I learned quite a bit in that journey.

However, you have continued to repeatedly claim your references are the most up to date. When I saw that you did so initially, that I was surprised and disappointed. You are still claiming cutting edge, so I am less surprised, and disappointed.

FYI: You should be aware that in general, going by research that is 10-20 years old is still probably helpful for the majority in a limited capacity, and most likely will not HURT. There are some exceptions there, but for this context I am seeing how it can be satisfactory. But you should be aware that it is not optimal, not guaranteed to be helpful, and absolutely should not be called “leading research.” As such, we also disagree on what you are referencing up there as “science.”

[JB]

@Fellbutbackup

We strongly disagree on the concept of “leading research.” Referencing a 10-20 year old textbook is using extremely outdated research. For some concepts even three-five years is pushing it. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, after consulting horse studies, only ended up confirming you were wrong multiple times.

That is OK. I learned quite a bit in that journey.

However, you have continued to repeatedly claim your references are the most up to date. When I saw that you did so initially, that I was surprised and disappointed. You are still claiming cutting edge, so I am less surprised, and disappointed.

LMAO! I never claimed cutting edge.

Several times I made a very specific point to say these are the latest.

And FINALLY, you’re right, yes, I absolutely DID claim my “references are the most up to date.”

Maybe you’re confusing “latest” with “new” :rolleyes:

FYI: You should be aware that in general, going by research that is 10-20 years old is still probably helpful for the majority in a limited capacity, and most likely will not HURT. There are some exceptions there, but for this context I am seeing how it can be satisfactory. But you should be aware that it is not optimal, not guaranteed to be helpful, and absolutely should not be called “leading research.” As such, we also disagree on what you are referencing up there as “science.”

Never said it was optimal.
Always said it was the best we had.

Just because something is 10 years old doesn’t automatically mean the science has change.

Maybe you should read this thread again.

Maybe your beef should be taken up with the NRC guys. I’m sure they’d be SO grateful for your help :yes: Maybe you can start a funding program to get new research done on these things you’re just convinced are no longer valid. I know a huge number of people would be very thankful to have newer, or even some at all, studies done on certain things in horses.

[JB]

@Fellbutbackup

We strongly disagree on the concept of “leading research.” Referencing a 10-20 year old textbook is using extremely outdated research. For some concepts even three-five years is pushing it. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, after consulting horse studies, only ended up confirming you were wrong multiple times.

That is OK. I learned quite a bit in that journey.

However, you have continued to repeatedly claim your references are the most up to date. When I saw that you did so initially, that I was surprised and disappointed. You are still claiming cutting edge, so I am less surprised, and disappointed.

LMAO! I never claimed cutting edge.

Several times I made a very specific point to say these are the latest.

And FINALLY, you’re right, yes, I absolutely DID claim my “references are the most up to date.”

Maybe you’re confusing “latest” with “new” :rolleyes:

FYI: You should be aware that in general, going by research that is 10-20 years old is still probably helpful for the majority in a limited capacity, and most likely will not HURT. There are some exceptions there, but for this context I am seeing how it can be satisfactory. But you should be aware that it is not optimal, not guaranteed to be helpful, and absolutely should not be called “leading research.” As such, we also disagree on what you are referencing up there as “science.”

Never said it was optimal.
Always said it was the best we had.

Just because something is 10 years old doesn’t automatically mean the science has change.

Maybe you should read this thread again.

Maybe your beef should be taken up with the NRC guys. I’m sure they’d be SO grateful for your help :yes: Maybe you can start a funding program to get new research done on these things you’re just convinced are no longer valid. I know a huge number of people would be very thankful to have newer, or even some at all, studies done on certain things in horses.

[JB]

@Fellbutbackup

We strongly disagree on the concept of “leading research.” Referencing a 10-20 year old textbook is using extremely outdated research. For some concepts even three-five years is pushing it. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, after consulting horse studies, only ended up confirming you were wrong multiple times.

That is OK. I learned quite a bit in that journey.

However, you have continued to repeatedly claim your references are the most up to date. When I saw that you did so initially, that I was surprised and disappointed. You are still claiming cutting edge, so I am less surprised, and disappointed.

LMAO! I never claimed cutting edge.

Several times I made a very specific point to say these are the latest.

And FINALLY, you’re right, yes, I absolutely DID claim my “references are the most up to date.”

Maybe you’re confusing “latest” with “new” :rolleyes:

FYI: You should be aware that in general, going by research that is 10-20 years old is still probably helpful for the majority in a limited capacity, and most likely will not HURT. There are some exceptions there, but for this context I am seeing how it can be satisfactory. But you should be aware that it is not optimal, not guaranteed to be helpful, and absolutely should not be called “leading research.” As such, we also disagree on what you are referencing up there as “science.”

Never said it was optimal.
Always said it was the best we had.

Just because something is 10 years old doesn’t automatically mean the science has change.

Maybe you should read this thread again.

Maybe your beef should be taken up with the NRC guys. I’m sure they’d be SO grateful for your help :yes: Maybe you can start a funding program to get new research done on these things you’re just convinced are no longer valid. I know a huge number of people would be very thankful to have newer, or even some at all, studies done on certain things in horses.

[JB]

Trying for the THIRD time to get something to stop going to the Unapproved hell:

@Fellbutbackup

We strongly disagree on the concept of “leading research.” Referencing a 10-20 year old textbook is using extremely outdated research. For some concepts even three-five years is pushing it. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, after consulting horse studies, only ended up confirming you were wrong multiple times.

That is OK. I learned quite a bit in that journey.

However, you have continued to repeatedly claim your references are the most up to date. When I saw that you did so initially, that I was surprised and disappointed. You are still claiming cutting edge, so I am less surprised, and disappointed.

LMAO! I never claimed cutting edge.

Several times I made a very specific point to say these are the latest.

And FINALLY, you’re right, yes, I absolutely DID claim my “references are the most up to date.”

Maybe you’re confusing “latest” with “new” :rolleyes:

[JB]

Part 2:

@Fellbutbackup

FYI: You should be aware that in general, going by research that is 10-20 years old is still probably helpful for the majority in a limited capacity, and most likely will not HURT. There are some exceptions there, but for this context I am seeing how it can be satisfactory. But you should be aware that it is not optimal, not guaranteed to be helpful, and absolutely should not be called “leading research.” As such, we also disagree on what you are referencing up there as “science.”

Never said it was optimal.
Always said it was the best we had.

Just because something is 10 years old doesn’t automatically mean the science has change.

Maybe you should read this thread again.

Maybe your beef should be taken up with the NRC guys. I’m sure they’d be SO grateful for your help :yes: Maybe you can start a funding program to get new research done on these things you’re just convinced are no longer valid. I know a huge number of people would be very thankful to have newer, or even some at all, studies done on certain things in horses.

[TheMoo]

@JB is really worth arguing someone who can’t wrap their head around a supplement vs a ration balancer? I mean that is the level we are dealing with.

[SuzieQNutter]

@Fellbutbackup I still have no idea whether you think horses should be fed Vegetable oil or not.

For your attitude and the way you treat people I will not be changing to giving it even if you say to.

You sound like someone who is stuck in academia and have no street smarts at all.

[Simkie]

It’s abundantly clear that there are no studies in support of what our OP is claiming…so my vote is woo. An animal psychic told her the horse had “issues” with oil and she used muscle testing to come up with the “research” she’s citing here. :rolleyes: