16 stone, to heavy to ride or not???

[Sparkles]

No...I think she was agreeing with you Benson lol

 

[alainax]

I am sorry benson, I am well aware that you have had the most awful time and my thoughts have been with you. All I am trying to say is that a 16 stone man is not necessarily overweight. He would be fit and active and would have the ability to ride a fit quality hunter. I know I came over sexist, but women are not generally as heavy as men unless they are overweight.

However... you cant tar everyone with the same brush! I climbed a mountain at alot heavier than 16stone and was quicker, more agile and less out of breath that my 11stone friend.

And similarly some men carry alot of weight around thier stomachs which is alot more unhealthy that a big hipped/thighed woman.
Some heavy people are unfit, some arent, just like thier equine counterparts.

 

[pastie2]

i totaly agree with you, i am by no means a skinny minny im about 14 and a half stone , but i wud never say sumthin like that, its people like them that put people like my friend off

I might take you more seriously if I could understand your english!

 

[benson21]

thats me just being thick then!!! LOL!!! sensitive subject to get me talking on!!!

 

[nutty mare!!]

no not at all benson 21, i was actually agreeing with u, im sorry if it seemed that way, im abit new with the forums, did i do something the wrong way?!! lol

 

[benson21]

also visually wise, which I know isnt important, I went to an event yesterday where this little dot of a woman, no more than a size 8, about 5ft 5 tall was riding a beautiful 16.2hh irish draught, and she looked like a pea on a drum!!!

 

[Sparkles]

Lol XD I'm staying well out. Deep waters... hell hath no fury... and all of that.
:S

I think brave or stupid for putting that extremely offensive original post comment publically tbh.


*popcorn*

Want some?

Or the ever famous jelly tots!

 

[otter2]

i've got pringles wouldn't mind some jelly tots though

 

[benson21]

exactly!!! I think there is always a nice way of putting things, no need to be offensive and make sweeping statements. as I have always been taught, if you cant think of anything nice to say, dont say anything.

 

[pastie2]

Its a question of dead weight and live weight, a 16 stone man experienced rider who is fit and not fat, men are generally heavier than women, is going to ride lighter than a 16 stone novice rider. Be it a bloody woman or man. Its a fact.

 

[benson21]

and popcorn, jelly tots and pringles would get me to 18 stone!!! and then what would I be!!! more than obese!!!!

 

[pastie2]

and popcorn, jelly tots and pringles would get me to 18 stone!!! and then what would I be!!! more than obese!!!!

Is that what you really want benson?

 

[somethingorother]

I don't think it's too heavy to find a horse that you can ride, and i understand you need to do a sport to lose weight (generic 'you' not specific person). But horses backs were not really made to carry weight, which is why correct schooling is essential to get them to bring their backs up and use it as a bridge. If a bridge was curving downwards it would not hold weight. This is what a horses back naturally does. Over time i do not think this is good for any horses back. 16 stone is over 2 of me, and i'm not a stick insect. Unless you are 10ft tall, which would be double my height, then that's like 2 of me sat on a horse, and i would never do that over a long period of time. No matter how big my horse, i would also unlikely let anyone do it either for more than say 20 mins once a week. And i would have to have a very fit, well muscled top lined horse for that. Most riding school horses are not worked corrctly enough for this required muscle. It's MUSCLE that matters, not bone!

So i think it is unfair to be 16stone, not try be be as light as possible and expect to ride. If you need a sport to lose weight then do one where you're not sat on a living thing. 16 stone is heavy. If you are not fat and are naturally 16 stone (pretty much not going to be for a woman) then fine, you can rest assured you are not putting extra strain on the horses back. Similarly, if you get a horse that 'can' carry 16 stone (not that i think they 'should' have to) and lose weight over time so that it does not have to carry that weight for a prolonged period of time, then i also agree with that.

I just see no need to subject a horse to that kind of weight with no intention of being as light as possible. If 16stone is as light as you can be because you're a tall muscly man, then fine. If you're an average heigh woman who is capible of losing some then i think you should before riding.

I don't give a fig if you're 60 stone as long as you're not sat on a horse, or me.

 

[benson21]

of course not, in an ideal world I would be a size 10, blond haired, stunning figure that could ride like the proffesionals. But who lives in an ideal world? I know I dont!!

 

[RuthnMeg]

Just for the record - according to some diet club thingy me-bob that my OH is into (it won't last long lol) I typed in all my stats - and it claims Iam obese! I am 5'4'', wear size 14 clothes and come in at 10.5 st - to be 'healthy' I have to weigh between 7.5 st - 9st, under that and I would be 'underweight' (or dead if it really WAS me) above that and under 10.5st I'd be over wieght.... in my eyes its a load of old trollop!! Iam fit and healthy, I ride and cycle and have just taken up running (god help me) and to put the shock factor into this thread even more, me and OH have entered the London Marathon 2011 (god help me more).
When it come to riding schools, I CAN see their point of having a weight limit, but 15 st caters for more of the heavier novice riders, I see no point in having that limit at only 13st. Saying that - I have yet to see a RS with scales to put the riders to the test??!
As for men v women? - I see no relivance in that comment at all - a persons weight is their weight whether or not they are male or female. Could say the same thing about not be able to cater for people over 6ft tall ... don't get that do you and yet it could have an effect on balance too??

 

[pastie2]

I don't think it's too heavy to find a horse that you can ride, and i understand you need to do a sport to lose weight (generic 'you' not specific person). But horses backs were not really made to carry weight, which is why correct schooling is essential to get them to bring their backs up and use it as a bridge. If a bridge was curving downwards it would not hold weight. This is what a horses back naturally does. Over time i do not think this is good for any horses back. 16 stone is over 2 of me, and i'm not a stick insect. Unless you are 10ft tall, which would be double my height, then that's like 2 of me sat on a horse, and i would never do that over a long period of time. No matter how big my horse, i would also unlikely let anyone do it either for more than say 20 mins once a week. And i would have to have a very fit, well muscled top lined horse for that. Most riding school horses are not worked corrctly enough for this required muscle. It's MUSCLE that matters, not bone!

So i think it is unfair to be 16stone, not try be be as light as possible and expect to ride. If you need a sport to lose weight then do one where you're not sat on a living thing. 16 stone is heavy. If you are not fat and are naturally 16 stone (pretty much not going to be for a woman) then fine, you can rest assured you are not putting extra strain on the horses back. Similarly, if you get a horse that 'can' carry 16 stone (not that i think they 'should' have to) and lose weight over time so that it does not have to carry that weight for a prolonged period of time, then i also agree with that.

I just see no need to subject a horse to that kind of weight with no intention of being as light as possible. If 16stone is as light as you can be because you're a tall muscly man, then fine. If you're an average heigh woman who is capible of losing some then i think you should before riding.

I don't give a fig if you're 60 stone as long as you're not sat on a horse, or me.

Thank god, the voice of reason! Are you the only one that realises that I am not being fatest, just factual.

 

[benson21]

I am finding this discussion fascinating! I put a thread up a few months ago saing I was 17 st, size 22, what sort of horse should I be looking at? I had so much support then, people posting pictures of themselves, some of them heavier than me, and only one person out of, I think 93 responses, said what about trying to loose some weight. Fair enough comment, but circumstances stop me at the mo. Just amazes me that 2 posts asking the same sort of questions can get completely different responses.

 

[brighthair]

I think a lot of people think 16 stone is HUGE. Thats me in my sig, on a 16hh horse, how much would you say I weighed there?

 

[brighthair]

Here's a bigger version. Please ignore my head I have no idea what I am doing!

 

[otter2]

about 14 1/2 stone? maybe more/less, it's hard to tell though as the picture is so small! and it looks like you are quite tall..

 

[somethingorother]

To be fair, there are only 2 of us really that are giving different responses to this. I understand your situation and that everyones situation is different benson 21. And i also understand from that last thread, which i refrained from commenting on, that when you are back to health you intend to lose some weight again. This i do not have a problem with because you are at least trying to minimise the issue by buying a suitable horse (as much as can be build wise) and not planning on it being a long term situation. It is when an undermuscled horse is subjected to high weight over numerous years that i see a problem. If riding schools allowed 16stone people to ride, this is the risk they run.

I think if you want to ride and you weight a lot, then do, but at least try to do something about it. If the horse is going to carry you and you could make his job easier, then i don't see what's not to do. We spend so much on correct tack for comfort etc, so why not spend a bit of time on something about ourselves which could make them more comfortable. We spend money on training to be better riders for our horses, why not be lighter as well?

I don't want to be offensive, it's just my logic of how i see things. A friend is coming to see my share on friday and she will not be riding because she is far too big. It's a fact. He's also lost top line from winter and being out of work, and anything over my 8stone (ok, lets say 10) is a bit much for him at the mo (in any real amount of work over a quick potter), even though he is a chunky crabbet arab (looks like he should easily carry over 12 stone, maybe over 14, but someone who was 14stone sat on him and he nearly collapsed because of lack of topline)

 

[RuthnMeg]

I think a lot of people think 16 stone is HUGE. Thats me in my sig, on a 16hh horse, how much would you say I weighed there?

corr - your tall!! I always look like a pea on a drum on 16hh lol
I also agree, peoples perseption of weight is wrong, 16 st might make someone who at 5ft look big, but at 6ft look thin and healthy and therefore wouldn't be questioned if they should turn up at a RS.

 

[brighthair]

about 14 1/2 stone? maybe more/less, it's hard to tell though as the picture is so small! and it looks like you are quite tall..

bigger photo now up, and I'm 5ft10

 

[brighthair]

corr - your tall!! I always look like a pea on a drum on 16hh lol
I also agree, peoples perseption of weight is wrong, 16 st might make someone who at 5ft look big, but at 6ft look thin and healthy and therefore would be questioned if they should turn up at a RS.

well he has meant to be 16hh - I think he was really 15.2hh and very narrow so didn't take up my leg. I only popped on him to test a saddle out

 

[pastie2]

I am finding this discussion fascinating! I put a thread up a few months ago saing I was 17 st, size 22, what sort of horse should I be looking at? I had so much support then, people posting pictures of themselves, some of them heavier than me, and only one person out of, I think 93 responses, said what about trying to loose some weight. Fair enough comment, but circumstances stop me at the mo. Just amazes me that 2 posts asking the same sort of questions can get completely different responses.

Benson, if I had been though the trauma you have been through, I would be a complete wreck! To hell with the weight and anything else. I am sorry I did not mean to cause you unecessary grief, I just responded to a post. Iam sorry if I have been outspoken. I didnt mean to offend you.

 

[otter2]

yeah so quite tall.. i don't know ahaha! but one of my best friends is 12 stoneish and she's smaller that you and shorter.. but people do carry weight differently! some people can be 9/10 stone but carry it all on their stomach and look huge or be 9/10 stone and it be evenly distributed and look average

 

[benson21]

no offense taken, i think we just should agree to disagree. x

 

[pastie2]

no offense taken, i think we just should agree to disagree. x

OK Benson, love you.!xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[HollyWoozle]

The weight thing is an issue for me as I have a large friend who I'm sure would like to ride my horse and it just wouldn't be appropriate (and I don't want to tell her... but I wouldn't let her on horse no matter what).

My mum and others like to point out that there are plenty of good sized men that go out and hunt all day on horses the size of mine (16.2 ISH) and smaller so my friend could easily plod around, but I just don't think it's right. I don't believe that my horse was designed to carry that kind of weight (I would guess 17 stone at least, no offense to anyone this size as I'm sure some horses can carry this weight). I do think that a fit, proportionate and balanced rider, whether male or female, is very different to the equivalent weight in an unbalanced novice. I think pastie's point was more that a 16 stone man is more likely to be fitter and healthier than a woman, in general, as they are usually taller and stronger etc.

I used to weigh over 13 1/2 stone and now I weigh little over 11 and I am particularly pleased with this as it opens up doors for me when riding. I can ride smaller horses without feeling as though they're struggling at all (no guilt!) and I just feel more comfortable on the bigger ones too. In fact, I'm trying to lose a bit more!

OP - I don't think that your 16 stone friend should be put off riding at all. I just think that she should try not to be offended if she is limited to certain horses, after all, the owners probably only have the best interests of their horses at heart. I hope that she is able to find somewhere to learn and perhaps she will find it good motivation to lose a little weight if not (I mean if she would like to).

 

[Wishful]

16 stone will probably be marginal for most riding schools - riding is generally quite a girly activity and a horse big enough to carry that sort of weight would be potentially uncomfortable for other novices, both with height and width of saddle. So the horse will cost a lot in shoes and keep, will require a new saddle, and if they should come up lame, or off colour they have to put the client on something else, or cancel. Neither is ideal, or particularly worthwhile economically. There are also plenty of sports which can help lose weight which do not involve being on a horse. I view horse riding as my reward for keeping my weight down and going running and walking up hills. When I've made my target weight, I will try and find a share horse, until then, I will continue with occasional treks and maybe lessons when I have some more money...

The trekking stables I go to probably goes up to about 15 to 16 stone - they have a couple of shire cross cobs. Both ride pretty big, but it's always a shock on the way down off the larger of the two - 17hh is a long way down, you're still coming down when you think you should have landed. But as a trekking stables/tourist attraction, they need a couple of horses for the dads to ride when they are dragged by the rest of the family. Some of the smaller regulars also ride them (including me), but a lot, including my OH would rather not as they struggle to get their legs around the larger horses, or feel sore from the stretch.

I think that 16 stone can be a reasonable weight for a tall (6'4 plus) and relatively broadly built man. Very few women are 6'4, and most women are lighter in build than most men. That said my OH is 6' and about right for his build at 70 kg. He's a light build anyway and seems to have light bones, so the ideal weight completely depends on body type. There's plenty of other men who'd be ridiculously skinny at 70kg at 6' tall.