Hey everyone:

Just saw this in thehorse.com today:



http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.asp ... 894&src=VW for more from this article.

http://masetto.ingentaselect.co.uk/fste ... d7159f.pdf for a copy of the full article published in The Equine Veterinary Journal.

It's worth looking at the full thing -- very interesting judges comments on page 3.

Bravo to Dr. Cook and colleagues for pushing to get data on this!!!!

Best,
Leigh

WOW...really good article!!!!

Just such studies are long overdue. This one is twice flawed (not meaning not true as to findings, just not the standard of research I require to be convinced of anything), once by the author being the inventor of one of the bitless bridles and that being used in the test. That's one.

The second problem is there was no comparison of like variable.

They compared horses commonly ridden in a bit, with the very same horses ridden in a bitless Cooks.

What one needs is a set of horses ridden only in bit, a set ridden only in bitless, And most important of all, a set of horses green broke and then trained to BOTH bitless and all other conditions would need to be leveled, breed, age, prior training, health, mouth anatomy, etc.

Then one has something to measure and compare.

I like Cook. I hope I can put a bitless in my budget one day not to far off. But I get great results with just a halter and a clip on rein. Dakota, for instance, could do everything in a Bosal, or a plain halter, that he could do with a snaffle, and more in fact. He and I both disliked the snaffle. Bosal and halter hardly mattered between them, as my goal was lightness and we attained a great deal of it.

Sadly, I can love what they found, but not how they found it in this research attempt.

And it hurts bitless riding for the unsoundness of its protocols. I wish people would not do that.

If I, someone that dislikes bits intensely, can find fault with it, imagine what those that advocate for the bit and against bitless might say. "FLAWED STUDY," will be the least of their accusations.

The good side?

That there is more exposure to the concept of bitless as a viable riding style for high levels of achievement by the horse and rider. Even bad news is better than no news, at least in advertising and marketing.

Donald (who now feels like a meany, I'm sorry, really I am).

Donald, I really don't agree with you!

I see your points, and understand them, but I don't think this is disastrous. This is not the be-all, end-all study. It's a start.

It was deemed a rigorous enough study enough for the peer-reviewed Equine Veterinary Journal. (And if they had even a hint of doubt that this was not a legitimate study, it NEVER would have been published.)

It is no more or less flawed than any number of other behavioral studies done with horses. Their hypothesis was very specific: "a horse’s behavior would change--for the better--when ridden with a bitless bridle, compared to a bridle with a bit."

They weren't looking to do a comparison with other horses. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure how you could do that, actually. How could you possibly hope to match horse temperament/experience/training, etc. to accurately gauge one horse's response to a bitless bridle vs. one horse's response to a bit? I don't know how that would be possible. Can you explain to me how you could structure a study to match horse variables closely enough to get meaningful data?

And, lastly, yes, you're right, Cook was a part of the study. Which he acknowledges right up front. As an academic, in my experience, that's the key -- be open about any biases, etc. you might have before you state your case. No one walks in without biases -- the mythology of true objectivity is pretty far off in academic circles these days.

Beyond that, Cook's s co-author is the first professor of animal behavior in Britain, with a whole series of legitimate credits. Here's his bio: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/dbs/staff/479.asp

I think anyone can find fault with almost any study protocol done by any scientist if one wishes to. (I'm actually contrary enough that I do that, periodically, reading about research studies on Science Daily and knowing I could do it better... ).

Best,
Leigh

I didn't make clear enough that I agree with the sentiment you express above. Lack of clarity on my part, sorry.

Hmmm..we have a semantic disconnect. Legitimate yes, rigorous no.

Oh I hope there have been better, and I know there have been worse.

The hypothesis is not rigorous enough. Nor was the study. We don't know for instance how a set of horses would behave that had been ridden bitless as a rule, as these were ridden with bits as a rule, then ridden with a bit. They might have performed better. We'd like, as being more sympathetic to the bitless path, to think they wouldn't, but we don't know.

But they could have devised a much more rigorous test of the hypotheses. It's not enough to say x results in y, because x precedes y. One must look at what else, say z or a or b also precedes y.

To my eye and mind I see only a soft correlation. They rode horses that traditionally went in the bit. Switched them to bitless and saw a change. I could have put La Jaquima on them and seen a change. I've done this with horse I've lost count of. It's the point in making the change. The outcome was highly predictable. If I've ridden, as I did a great deal, a horse in both, switching back and forth, what happened was that the two began to have the same result, assuming my training was assiduous and my touch and cues equally light, and enough time and experience was given the horse.

You can't. You adjust for the variables.

I would not compare them to each other. I would compare them to themselves. I'd have a set of horse that began in bit, another that began in bitless, then I would switch each, AND I would make sure the same amount of time was spent in bitless and bited, as the new headpiece as they had spent in the prior headpeice. Then I'd have something to compare to. Without comparing the horses against each other.

Unless I misread, the bit wearing horses that were switched to bitless had relatively long histories of going bitted and none going bitless.

There is no mythology of true objectivity except in those that wish to debate the issue and bring it in unfairly. What is true that if one has bias admitting it does not suddenly make one objective.

It does allow the observer to note the risk of bias, exactly what I did with Cook.

I have a bias toward La Jaquima. Admitting it does not mean that I'm suddenly objective about it as compared to all other head gear for the horse. It just means you know I have the bias, I am warning you I do, and you may take what I say as being weighted in favor of it and against some other head gear.

Mmmm...I'm just short of worship of Cook. Not so much for his work, although that counts for a great deal, but for his invention, and for his brooking no nonsense from those that criticize it without any real knowledge of it and its principles. I both like it and have doubts about it. That is because I appreciate bitless and I have not tried this one, both. So I'm stuck with giving an unweighted opinion and relying on you, and others here that have used it to inform me. This encourages me to keep on trying to find time and money to test one.


I totally agree. There isn't much that can't be faulted. So I faulted this one. I think I'm justified, if not clear enough at times. I still would have liked to see horses studied that had worn neither bitted or bitless (thus they would have to be started green) and then look at outcomes by the switching method I suggested.

Thank you for disagreeing with me and being candid and transparent with your thoughts. I value that very much. I hope I haven't drifted back into my old harsher academic posturing that I used to do too much of.

Hey Donald:

Still disagreeing! (Concussions make for cantankerous conversation mates, I think...)

Some fairly random thoughts:

First, I'm glad we weren't as off balance with one another as I thought from your initial post -- I read it to mean that you felt that this was not a legitimate study. We can argue rigor until the cows come home, of course, but I don't think that's a semantic difference. To my mind, legitimate is very different than levels of rigor.

Then...


The outcome was highly predictable to you because you've done so much work with this. It is NOT highly predictable to the standard horse world, and is not highly predictable to the equine behaviorist world (at least in academic contexts). This is not a soft correlation for most horse people. This, just this move, is huge. It flies in the face of enormous resistance to bitless work, and an unwillingness for most people in the equine industry to even consider working without a bit, let alone acknowledging that anything could be better without one.

Their point was bit vs. no bit -- the methodology they used happened to be Cook's bridle. They could have used sidepulls or cavessons, halters with a clip, or even cordeos. So while I understand your point about the tools you've used, they weren't going that far to discriminate between different bitless tools. They were simply looking to make a point about bits vs. bitless.



I think that's the next study (or somewhere down the line). And here's where I disagree with you about rigor -- I think they took a very specific hypothesis and set out to test that. Period. Small hunk. First step. Doesn't justify slamming the study, to my mind, and suggesting that it was worse than no study (which is what you implied in your first post, unless I really misread you...that's how I read:


Again, its protocols are NOT unsound. They maybe didn't take the study as far as you would have liked, but that does not mean that it is not a valid study.

As to studying different horses, vs. the same ones, your suggestion in this second post makes more sense to me. Your suggestion in your first post:

sounded very much like two sets of horse being assessed separately/comparatively to me. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I think you could drive truck holes through the variables in a study like that -- it would be virtually impossible, unless you had a huge enough study group (of hundreds, if not thousands of horses) to extrapolate a mean, to adjust for the variables.

However, I think your proposal of working with green horses and training some in bits, some in bitless is an interesting idea and could provide some very interesting insights -- but getting a longitudinal study like that funded, let alone stabilized, is a long way off -- and frankly, the study that Cook and Mills did that we're talking about is a first step towards something like that, yes? This science is in its infancy -- I think it is easy for those of us who are living in this world to forget that.

(When I need to remember, I go visit the horse list I was on when I first got Circe -- and where I was told I was everything from unbelievably stupid to criminally negligent by the vast majority of the members when I mentioned that I rode Stardust without a bit. I got excoriated -- this was about a year and a half ago, at most. People spouted off about how there wasn't a trainer in the world who would train bitless because of insurance/liability concerns. They were, of course, dead wrong, but they are exceedingly indicative of where most people are. For most of the world, riding with no metal in the mouth is beyond verboten.)

And as to objectivity -- you made the point I was trying to make. No, one does not suddenly get visited by divine objectivity when one cops to one's biases -- but you do allow your audience to adjust for predispositions. (Which we tend to have anyway!) Nobody's trying to fake anyone out. And his co-author does balance that a bit, I think. As did the judges -- he was not making the assessments of the difference in horses' movement and attitudes, independent judges were. (Which is more than he's been able to get FEI to do...)

So, would it be lovely if additional researchers looked at what happens with bit and without bit? Heck, yeah! Would it be fabulous to get larger, longitudinal studies happening on the impact of bit/bitless in training arcs? Of course!

And I can guarantee you that Bob Cook would be the first one to cheer them on. But we're not there yet.

So to my mind, this study, even though it may have been small in its scope, is an important, and yes, legitimate, sound step towards more. And I personally am more excited about what they've evidenced over what they haven't.


Best,
Leigh

It certainly does not. It only makes it impossible to draw certain conclusions.

I know that different disciplines have different standards concerning the strictness of their methods and probably in psychology we are a bit extreme in looking for pureness of the results and eliminating all kinds of confounds. But I agree with both you and Donald. With you that it is a good first step and with Donald that it does not exclude several confounds and with that makes it impossible for that study to be strong causual evidence. That is just not possible with that type of design, no matter what topic is being adressed. It can´t control for effects of time, prehistory and several others. That makes it easy to criticize the results.

But then a correlation is a nice hint already, even if it does not say anything about the cause, and hopefully it will encourage others to conduct further studies.

Bravo to Dr. Cook for making a start!

I think that's a great way to distinguish what I was seeing and what (I think! ) Donald was critiquing, Romy, thanks.

And now you guys have gotten my little monkey brain going...

Donald had a great idea for two sets of horses and a particular kind of arced training (bit/no bit) for each, using those as controls...

How else might a study about the causality of bit use/no bit use be structured? I'd love to hear people's ideas about this -- I think it would be an interesting effort to think through some possibilities...

It sure would be great if someone with some financial resources was willing to invest in some more research on all of this...


Leigh

As soon as the angel is found we can arrange for me to buy the young stock, bring them to my new facility (of course we have to have a nice new facility - 150-200 acres would be about right) with proper work areas, etc.

I will then undertake the schooling of these horses, singlehandedly of course, to remove the problem of variables between trainers, There will be just one trainer doing the same thing with each horse. Me.

So, when can we begin?

More seriously, I hope in this next year to test out on Altea, or horses I'm working with (about to take on an anxious fretting Tenn. Walker soon), various permutations of bitless bridles. I'd like to have a choice made and tested before three more years are ending because that is when, if she gives permission, I'll consider backing Bonnie for the first time. I want to have made up my mind what to decorate her head with.

I'm saving my pennys even now.

Donald

here some small videos from the studie

http://www.bitlessbridle.com/dbID/420.html

Inge, thanks so much for the links to the videos! Cool! Haven't watched yet, but am looking forward to it.

Donald...oh, my, wouldn't that be utterly splendid. If I had millions I'd be setting you up...

Can't hurt to put it out there, though, can it?

xo
Leigh

Did you see these videos from the experiment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Ctfqcx6QA The experiment conducted 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W5LgH-pJxs 1st horse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3feQgG9WiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBBAZj4tuQ 2nd horse


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek1Yc0zLxDU 3rd horse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBBAZj4tuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPXlI37zZjs 4th horse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMuHRZonlIA Results

This study is a good start. Thanks for the links. I would like to see a study comparing bridleless with western riding (draped rein or at least no contact). In this study it is too easy to dismiss the results by blaming the rider's hands (not quiet, consistent enough). Another weekness in the study is that different horses have different mouths and do better with different types of snaffle bits. Some negative effects could have been alleviated by using double-jointed bits, smaller diameter bits, lighter bits etc. depending on the horses mouth size, tongue etc. The results in the bitless could have been even better with some of the horses without a cross-under but a sidepull or cavesson or halter type bitless bridle.
If the purpose is to convince people to try a bitless bridle it might work. If the purpose is to convince people that all bits are harmful to horses the evidence needs to be much better in my opinion. Maybe every rider needs to find out with their horse what gets the best response.

This thread subject has always fascinated me, from the time as a boy in my teens, over 50 years ago, when I rode the mighty Poncho (everyone got bucked off him, even the packsaddles in the pack string I bought him out of) with just a rope halter, and eventually entered and won gymkana events with nothing on his head at all. He taught me so much I lost later in following the horseworld professionally where I learned to use bits of all kinds.

I apologize for not spotting you post sooner and responding to it as it touched a spot of tenderness with me. While I argue, as you noted, about the "confounds" present in the Cook research study results, and that they cannot be considered causal (leaving only one more step for the greatest research legitimacy - replication and peer review) I am a strong proponent of "correlations."

Much of the practical end of research, development, often by engineers, has moved forward on the strength of correlation rather than stop from missing the marks of causation.

In particular, but not isolated to, the so called "soft sciences" such as those labeled as social sciences correlation is all there is to go on because of, among other limitations and boundaries to the protocols, ethics stops us from destructive or even fatal outcomes (as is so often used in animal experimentation in the bio-sciences. We simply can't burn up human (or these days) animal subjects and examine the constituents of the remaining ash particles.

Though I talked about, as a way to get better science on the issue of bitless versus bitted, doing experiments I could never do so myself - I could not bit a horse. Even today when I do evaluations on horses (I'm paid to do these) to determine trainability etc. I ask, even plead with the owners to allow me to use at least the bosal (La Jaquima). As cruel as it can be I know how to be light with it, and most American horse folks are familiar with it.

Day before yesterday I rode with a snaffle bit on a nice Arabian gelding I'm probably going to ride and work with regularly as a lesson horse for two of my students at the barn. Stupid me, I had totally forgotten the barn owner (she owns this horse) had ridden him for years outside the showring in a simple halter. Others were riding him with the snaffle and I for once forgot my own desire to ride bitless.

Though I'm certainly good with my hands, better than any other of the aids, I think, he still at times told me clearly he did not like the bit, and that the people that had been riding him with it had been pulling him rather badly. Now I have a quandary. I could, when I personally ride him go bitless, even just soft a rope halter would do. But he will be ridden by the students who will be showing him in events where they cannot go bitless.

Do I teach them proper use of the bit (almost no use at all), or do I upset the program planned for their riding, and likely get into it with their parents and introduce these children to what they already know ... how to play and enjoy the horse AND style? Hmmm..

For now I'm left with doing both. Either way, or both, I can teach the soft giving hand, just as I did for so many years in my last incarnation as a teacher/trainer/coach.

Bringing me back then to the subject. No, I would not support more bitted/bitless research, and that on moral and ethical grounds, but I would be happy to see correlations with bitless only. I have to reject the disciplines that result in causality because, because, because, they would hurt horses. Hurt their mouths and their minds.

And your comments about and agreement with my statement about causality lacking and confounds in the research of Cook help me with more and more clarity on these issues.

And help me face too that I will likely be something of a subversive as I teach and train. Possibly in time I will find more and more people that would like to explore the AND side of the horse.

On of my students has many years of experience in the orthodox horseworld, competing, showing, and even owning and running a barn of her own (yes, it's the barn owner that's asked me to work out of her facility) yet the other day, when talking about the Arabian gelding I'm going to be using a lot, she said, almost plaintively, that of all the times she's been with this horse the parts she remembers with the most happiness was when they were just playing about, bareback, with a halter.

Doesn't that sound like an invitation. I think she's seen me doing my talking and other communication with horses. Though she has an expression of slight disapproval
I've a hunch something gets through to her. Probably from when she was a girl and did much more play and companionship with the horse.

What if I let her watch me clicker train him to do something utterly fun and silly, even with letting him do it his own way at his own pace? He has a very playful streak in him, I can tell. She's super intelligent and would move very quickly I think toward realization of the concept of "ask," don't demand, even though she is very much a demanding person to the horses she has - presently.

Hmmmm...

What a drama and challenge, no?

In any case I now have a lighted indoor riding area to work in all winter. Am I tickled.

And the barn owner wants me to give her "dressage." lessons. I bet I can get her to show up without a bit on her horse, easily, as she does this all the time now, on her own. How much of a leap would it be to suggest to her, down the road a bit when her horse is doing its work without a bit, that we could together start a whole movement of bitless dressage together in this area.

I know her heart is good. And she loves her horses. She even keeps two rescues that will never be rideable again. And spoils them terribly.

Donald
Nettlepatch Farm

Beautiful post, Donald!

I'm with you on the causality testing discomfort -- I find I'm not able to think about bits in any constructive way at this point and will not ever put a bit in a horse's mouth.

And I think, with the causality/correlations equation, of course this experiment has limitations.

And Birgit, yes, I agree that it will be very cool if there can be additional studies that begin to parse out some of the variables between bits, horse physiology, and riding styles. (Easier said than done, though, given how quickly the variables can get to correlations as well because they're so difficult to recreate exactly.)



I think the effort is to begin to build a solid scientific construct about the viability of no bits and the potential issues of bits. Cook is first and foremost a scientist -- he is an evangelist, yes, but he is a legitimate researcher (and has been one for 40 plus years).

This is the very first study of ANY kind done about comparing the effects of a bit vs. no bit that has had ANY traction in the veterinary/research community. I don't think Cook has any illusions that one study is going to undo people's beliefs and biases about bits. (Or that two will, or five, or ten, or even twenty -- this is a long haul to change hundreds of years of biases in a community not known for its open-armed embrace of new ideas.)

What is remarkable to me about this study, and what I'm hoping doesn't get lost in the critiques of its scope, scale, setup, etc., is that it is a first. And it is an opportunity for people who are absolutely convinced that working without a bit is tantamount to disaster that actually, when a horse is ridden with no bit, no one is killed, and in fact, horses don't exhibit many of the discomfort 'tells' they do when bitted.

Just that thought alone is utterly revolutionary for most of the horse people in my part of the world.

I think perhaps our critiques of this study are harsh because it feels like he's not pointing out anything we don't already know. But most people in the horse world don't know this, and the idea of the veterinary community being willing to have even an exceedingly small study like this published in a peer reviewed journal is nothing short of extraordinary.

And maybe I'm hypersensitive about this, but I feel really badly that the community of folks who already believe bits are problematic aren't out there supporting this, cheering Cook and his colleague on, sharing the results of this first study with everyone they know, and challenging people to help think about how/where/when the next study might get done, but instead are saying that the study isn't good enough.

Cook is already fighting huge resistance from the traditional training community, almost single-handedly (does anyone know of any other veterinary researcher other than his colleague on this study who's actually done research on bits/no bits?) -- as we think about how we can help people understand how to work and play and live with their horses differently, it seems to me that a study like this is an important step. It's an opening. A beginning. And as such, deserves, in my mind, attention and support.

Science is the land of increments, rarely sweeping systemic shifts. With these results in hand, Cook and his colleague now have a shot at getting another institution to support another study that's a little bit larger and more ambitious in scope.

I think that's just marvelous.

Best,
Leigh