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

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:
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!

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

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.

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!!


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..

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???

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.

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?

Subbing :)

Very interesting.

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.