# Boots vs Polos .... Here is the Professional's Choice SMB study from 1998 ...



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

There's always the big debate on which supports a performance horse the best: Sport Boots or Polo Wraps? There have been scientific studies on both with one in 1989 on live Thoroughbreds with polos, and studies by Professional's Choice SMB sport boots. 

After sending 3 unanswered emails to Professional's Choice asking for copies of their study that they quote on their website (Our Research), I finally called the company and requested it over the phone, to which they finally obliged. It just arrived in the mail today. I have attached the images below in the following posts. 

They state the following on their website:


> Research was conducted on our Sports Medicine Boots at Oklahoma State University under the direction of Dr. Michael Collier and Dr. Olin Balch of the Equine Sports Medicine Laboratory. The results from their tests confirmed the ability of our Sports Medicine Boots to absorb an average of 26% of energy, and up to as much as 45% of energy from hoof impact, while also preventing hyperextension of the fetlock. Standard polo wraps and adhesive bandages that were also tested under similar conditions registered at only 6-10% average energy absorption. Our boots were then examined to see if they restricted the movement of the horse’s ankle. Not only was it found that movements was not inhibited, but that horses actually shifted their weight to the feet that were wearing the boots.
> 
> During a workout as horses get tired, they naturally shift their weight to different feet, but in this study they immediately shifted their weight to those legs wearing the boots, enforcing the belief that horses should wear supportive boots on all four legs to maintain normal weight distribution.
> During a workout as horses get tired, they naturally shift their weight to different feet, but in this study they immediately shifted their weight to those legs wearing the boots. Professional’s Choice is the only company to have rigorously tested protective equine boots with certified veterinarians in a laboratory setting.


Based on the actual study, let's examine their claims. 


_"absorb an average of 26% of energy, and up to as much as 45%"_

This seems a bit far-fetched and possibly misleading, especially to throw that 45% number out there. The study did show that a booted hind leg (using six cadaver "dead" legs, but not a real horse) absorbs between 4.7% and 36.8% of energy for their Prototype SMB, 7.5% to 31.7% for their SMB I boot, 11.2% to 44.7% for their SMB II boot, and 10.5% to *45%* for a used (20 hours) SMB II boot. The ranges I have stated are the ranges between the 6 legs tested. As you can see, there was only one leg that achieved 45% energy absorbtion out of all six. Yet they state that as a claim on their website. Yes, I do believe that they provide some level of support, but to claim 45% from the top end of the standard deviation from one isolated result is very misleading to the public, in my opinion. To be fair, they should have also stated that they can provide *as* *little support as only 4.7%* which would be the low end of the standard deviation. But that's the number marketing game.
In addition, they should clarify that it was a used SMB II boot that provided the 26% average energy absorption, since the prototype, and "new" SMB I and SMB II boots provided 20.7%, 20.2%, and 23.4% energy absorption respectively. Although, the four boots used were shown to be not statistically different from each other (p >0.05), so I suppose it is valid that they did not specify which boot provides the 26% protection.
_"while also preventing hyperextension of the fetlock."_

In the study provided to me (that I will include in the posts below) they did not have this actual finding. *This statement is false.* What they said in the actual study report in the conclusion section is the following: "Biomechanically, these support boots should reduce hyperextension of the fetlock in exercising horses and therefore reduce the strain in the structures that constitute the suspensory apparatus of the fetlock." They did NOT actually test it. They basically guessed that it "should" reduce hyperextension. They have no scientific basis to make the claim that it can actually prevent hyperextension. Absurd.
_"Standard polo wraps and adhesive bandages that were also tested under similar conditions registered at only 6-10% average energy absorption."_

They must have pulled this from some other study because they do not mention these numbers anywhere in the report I recieved (and attached below). They do mention a study from 1990 that is referenced that I am assuming they pulled these numbers from; I will see if I can find it anywhere.
_"Our boots were then examined to see if they restricted the movement of the horse’s ankle. Not only was it found that movements was not inhibited, but that horses actually shifted their weight to the feet that were wearing the boots. During a workout as horses get tired, they naturally shift their weight to different feet, but in this study they immediately shifted their weight to those legs wearing the boots, enforcing the belief that horses should wear supportive boots on all four legs to maintain normal weight distribution."_


In the study I received, they used cadaver legs. I have no idea where they have examined these boots on real horses. When I requested all research articles by Professionals Choice for their sport boots, the lady I spoke with told me that this was the only one. Clearly she didn't know what the heck she was talking about, because on the back page it says they originally did a study in 1990. It appears that this study was done in 1995 but not published until 1998. They are already closed for the night, so I will have to call on Monday to find out.
Therefore, since there is no mention of testing the boots on live horses, I consider this entire paragraph bologna, at this point in time because I see no proof that they have tested these boots on real horses.
They even admit several times in the conclusion section of the article that the force used on the cadaver legs (2.1 cm/s) is very much lower than the real energy used on a real moving horse. Also, they admit that "live horses working at speed are necessary to validate the use of support boots as techniques to prevent and rehabilitate injuries" and they later on say that "Nevertheless, experimentation with live horses moving at speed on the surfaces where horses compete will be necessary to confirm that equine support boots do, indeed, reduce fetlock hyperextension and subsequent flexor and suspensory strain". This last statement reinforces my statement above that it is false of them to say their support boots prevent hyperextension of the fetlock.
Now, let me just say that all my horses wear Professional's Choice SMB boots on all four legs. I love their products. I have no doubt that they do provide some level of support, and no doubt physical protection for the legs, but I just have a problem when companies skew their results to make them sound better than they actually are......... 45%???? Prevents hyperextension????? Live horses shifted their weight to the boots, when they have never tested live horses?????

Okay. There's my nerdy scientific evaluation. 

Maybe I'll have more answers and/or studies to back up their other claims when I talk to someone who knows of these "studies that don't exist" like that lady told me. Because clearly there are others!


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Okay, here's the first 3 pages of the study:


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

Lol good to know!! I am of the belief that a 1/16" thick piece of neoprene is going to do nothing to "support" 1200lbs of weight coming down on it, and especially not at the tensions at which SMBs are applied. It would be interesting to see the results of a simulation of how much resistance/support id actually provided by neoprene.
What I also find interesting is that recent, independent studies have found that using boots which allow heat to circulate in them (like SMBs) actually cause deterioration of the internal structures due to heat, and some have concluded that the reduced risk of injury from using the boots is completely negated by how much the structures are deteriorated from the heat.

Personally, I only use boots and bandages on the legs which allow circulation of air. I use the Eskadron climatex bandage liners underneath polo wraps and when I need boots, I use the EcoGold flatwork boots.


----------



## DrumRunner (Jan 26, 2011)

Thanks for posting all of this!! I don't have time to read it right now so I'm subbing to come back to it. Hopefully they will be able to give you the rest of the studies..and I would think that they would have done more recent studies when coming out with the Elites and now the VenTech Elites? Or I would hope so...Definitely interesting stuff to read and I'm excited to hear more..Especially about the products like the Elites and VenTech that I use..Okay, boyfriend getting irritated..I'm supposed to be leaving..Laugh! I'll be back!!




~*~anebel~*~ said:


> What I also find interesting is that recent, independent studies have found that using boots which allow heat to circulate in them (like SMBs) actually cause deterioration of the internal structures due to heat, and some have concluded that the reduced risk of injury from using the boots is completely negated by how much the structures are deteriorated from the heat.
> \


This is why I'd like to see the actual studies behind the VenTech products..That's all I use now because they are breathable and do allow heat and moisture out and off of the leg..


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

And here's the last 3 pages:


And dang they are only loading as pictures. Looks too small to read. I was hoping others could download the attachments to read themselves. 

Any other way I could attach these???


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

DrumRunner: They have got to have at least one other study, because on their website link I posted, there a short video of a galloping horse on a treadmill with the boots on. And on the back page of the article they sent me (I didn't include it because it was all advertising junk) there is a top picture of a horse wearing tack (including Prof Choice Saddle Pad) and wearing the boots. 

Maybe they "crossed" the studies with the other equipment? And "noticed" how the horse would put its weight on the booted leg when they were studying something else? Who knows. 

Will have to wait and see.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Lol good to know!! I am of the belief that a 1/16" thick piece of neoprene is going to do nothing to "support" 1200lbs of weight coming down on it, and especially not at the tensions at which SMBs are applied. It would be interesting to see the results of a simulation of how much resistance/support id actually provided by neoprene.
> What I also find interesting is that recent, independent studies have found that using boots which allow heat to circulate in them (like SMBs) actually cause deterioration of the internal structures due to heat, and some have concluded that the reduced risk of injury from using the boots is completely negated by how much the structures are deteriorated from the heat.
> 
> Personally, I only use boots and bandages on the legs which allow circulation of air. I use the Eskadron climatex bandage liners underneath polo wraps and when I need boots, I use the EcoGold flatwork boots.


Well they *do* indeed provide some support, as indicated by this study on cadaver legs, when compared to cadaver legs that had no boots applied (as their control). But it certainly ain't no 45%. 

Can you post these independent heat studies you speak of? Or provide a link?


----------



## Hidalgo13 (Dec 24, 2010)

subbing


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

very interesting.


----------



## equiniphile (Aug 16, 2009)

Hmm, interesting. My mare wears Pro Choice any time we're barrel racing or practicing sharp turns and such at home, but I agree that the 45% claim is just ridiculous.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

Uugh well now of course the presentation that I need to find to get the name of the guy to find the paper went poof!!
Dr. Hilary Clayton has mentioned stuff about heat getting trapped in boots and recommending cold hosing after riding, especially when using SMBs.
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=11087

Here's an article on some guy doing some stuff, it's all unpublished though..
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=16037

I don't want to post weblinks to the articles I have though because they are all accessed through a proxy server... but I will post some cool articles I have found...
*Equine Veterinary Journal*

Volume 36, Issue 8, pages 769–771, December 2004

Influence of support boots on fetlock joint angle of the forelimb of the horse at walk and trot, Kicker CJ et. al.

This one basically says that support boots DO reduce the extension of the forelimb, but concludes to say who knows what the long term consequences of this are and that it may impede healing and actually do more harm than good.


Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2000, Pages 503–510
Evaluation of shock attenuation in the forelimb of horses wearing boots and wraps Luhmann, MA et. al.

The abstract to this one:
High frequency, high amplitude shock waves, believed to contribute to detrimental joint and bone changes, are generated each time the hoof strikes the ground. The purpose of the present study was to compare the shock attenuating capability of athletic support boots and traditional cotton wraps (polo wraps). Accelerometers were attached to the hoof and third metacarpus of five horses. Peak deceleration and asymptotic frequencies were measured at two speeds (3.5 mls, trot, and 6. 0 mls, gallop) under the following conditions: control (no boots or wraps), cotton wraps, and two athletic support boots. Leg supports did not reduce shock in the third metacarpus. In fact, support boots increased the asymptotic frequency measured in the third metacarpus. This result could be explained if the leg supports were acting to stiffen the limb, thereby increasing the spring constant of the leg support-limb system.



And I still cant find the darn presentation!... *angryface*


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I, for one, will ALWAYS take "research" funded by the tested products manufacturors with a definite GRAIN OF SALT.


----------



## MangoRoX87 (Oct 19, 2009)

45% ffrom hoof impact. That part doesn't sound like it's talking about support at all, sounds more like impact from a horse accidentally kicking itself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

MangoRoX87 said:


> 45% ffrom hoof impact. That part doesn't sound like it's talking about support at all, sounds more like impact from a horse accidentally kicking itself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The percentages they are talking about refer to the *Energy Absorption Curve* (EAC). To get this value, they did tests on the cadaver leg with and without the sport boot on the leg. They tested how much mechanical energy it took to depress the fetlock joint 6.7 cm at a rate of 2.10 cm/s. With a support boot on, it took more energy to depress the fetlock joint. Therefore, they are saying that the sport boot was "absorbing" some of the energy, because they had to apply _more mechanical energy_ to get the fetlock joint to depress 6.7 cm, than they did with a bare cadaver leg.

And this is where between all the testing on the 6 different legs that they have a range of finding from 4.7% EAC to 45% EAC. Of course, they chose to point out the 45% energy absorption because that makes their product sound better than it really is.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> I, for one, will ALWAYS take "research" funded by the tested products manufacturors with a definite GRAIN OF SALT.


^ THANK YOU.

I mean, what are they going to say? "These products are actually not worth the neoprene they're made of but you should spend a good paycheck on them anyway?" NO. They will not always be honest with you because the fact is they want to make money. 

Don't get me wrong, I ride with SMBs a lot, but I certainly didn't get my opinion of them from the companies studies. I also ride with the Legacy boots.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

As an update, I called them yesterday to ask for copies of the studies where they were actually used on live horses (since they made claims of horses shifting their weight to the booted leg, etc, as described above). She had no idea of any other studies, nor did she know of the study in 1990 at University of Wisconsin (they talked about printed on the backside of the study I did get).

She was going to pass my message onto the appropriate marketing people and they are going to call me back in a few days. 

Somehow, I really do not think I will get a phone call. But we'll see. Interesting to me anyway!


----------



## DrumRunner (Jan 26, 2011)

I think it's very interesting and I liked reading it..It definitely makes you think and consider everything..I do have to say though, that from personal experience I just favor the Elites better than other boots..I've always had great results from them..I also think that Pro Choice has stretched their truths a bit..Just because once or twice you may get that result, it doesn't mean you are going to every time..

Thanks for posting all of it Beau!


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

I have been using SMBs boots for a long time (About 15 years). My trainer uses both SMB and Polo Wraps. It will depend on the horse which one he using them on but it really comes down to cost more then support. A well condistioned horse does not need a lot of extra support. However they need the protection and I WILL NOT work a horse with out protection be it SMB boots or Polo Wraps. I personally prefer SMB boots for several reasons one being ease of use and the fact they do not come off they do not pick up water mud and crap like the Polo Wraps are and it is very very hard to put on the SMB boot wrong where it is very easy to do so with Polos.

As the end of the day I do not over care how much support the SMB vs Polos give. What I can about is how much protection they give how fast I can change them out if needed and how easy it is go have a non horse person to put them on with out too much instruction if needed. Which dose happen at times when you are showing or working more then one horse.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

MangoRoX87 said:


> 45% ffrom hoof impact. That part doesn't sound like it's talking about support at all, sounds more like impact from a horse accidentally kicking itself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is the big reason I use SMBs. To me the protection is more improtent then the support.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj (May 9, 2009)

Agreed, I find SMB's just easier protection as opposed to messing with time consuming polo wraps. Same reason I use shipping boots instead of standing bandages when I haul.

However, on my Arab mare, I found that due to her tendon sheath injuries, when she's not ridden in boots, her legs tended to swell. When ridden in SMB's, her legs remain tight and cool. This is the main reason I use them on her.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

I agree they do provide support too. I would say even more then Polo Wraps but that is just my opinion. I can also say that I can tell the difference in performance in some of my horses with and with out SMB boots.

Also I would think ANY study done before 2008-2009 would be obsolet as they have changed their boots several times over the past few years. They started out with the SMB then they came out with the SMB II which they had for a long long time then the Elite and about the same time the SMB III. They also offer a combo boot however I have never really liked them very much. I also have a set of their skid boots but do not use them very much and opt for for the Leathe Skid boots.


----------

