So, which one of you lot is the one-in-twenty?

I genuinely feel guilty now. I weigh 10.5 stone (winter weight!) and squish my well-built native apparently, weighing nearly 15 per cent of his weight. I was going to eat a couple of Thornton's classics in a minute, but perhaps I should put them down....

**Must not listen to Daily Fail** Gah.
 
Guilty. My 16.3 tb was 574 kg on weigh bridge in winter and lean so more in summer. Hes a chunky lad in bone for a tb but never carries a lot of fat. Am 12.10st so to heavy apparently.
 
Just for clarification...my highland weighs around 525kg by weight tape but if you put him on a proper scales he's 600kg. I never believe weight tapes ... notoriously inaccurate. Try actually weighing your horse rather than just measuring his waistline ....! He's 14.2 and a chunky boy, but not over heavy for his type and build. My instructor calls him "a big horse on short legs"so I can see why he'd weight the same as a 17hh!!

How about we all throw away our bathroom scales and just go by our height and waistlines instead? (for ref - 5ft 7, 25ins, 10 st).

Ps .... Definitely NOT part bred elephant - me, or the pony.....!
 
Erm, is that actually right? My horse is just under 500kg ish and that means I should weigh 7 1/2 stone ish, I certainly don't weigh that little?!

Mine was 450KG on the weigh bridge last time (15.2 TB). So I can only weigh 7 stone. Which would make me clinically quite underweight at 5'3''

I do believer the fail is, as usual, talking a load of BS ;)
 
I weigh around 9stones, my mare is at her best when she shows at being 475 kg on the weigh tape. I bought her from a teenager who probably weighed about 7st wet through. The mare (an Appy who has mainly araab and Tb blood lines) had discovered that she didn't have to do as she was asked with such a lightweight rider on board. If the 'guidelines' in that article are followed, then pretty much noone is going to be able to ride their horses! I can't quite see Carl Hester riding a dressage test on sisters Westphalian Kaltblud mare, who he would probably hit the 10% mark on :D :D
 
Mine was 450KG on the weigh bridge last time (15.2 TB). So I can only weigh 7 stone. Which would make me clinically quite underweight at 5'3''

I do believer the fail is, as usual, talking a load of BS ;)

I would have a BMI of 16. I don't think I should aim for that :eek:

(not that I'd ever get there, I reckon, unless I disolve my soft tissue in acid and weigh my skeleton post mortem!)


eta - I was imagining Carl Hester on a Percheron myself... And of course all these tall male eventers will be on shires and percherons going round Badminton :eek:
 
Daughters pony is 380 kg 13 2 connie show jumper and she is 44kg, 10 yrs old, (so in bsja could still be in 12 2 classes) tall and skinny.

When we got him he was obese and weighed 450kg.

Was that better for him? He was carrying excess weight himself but at least she was in the 10%. He was weight scored when we got him 6 months ago
as an 8 and again this week at 3.
 
Daughters pony is 380 kg 13 2 connie show jumper and she is 44kg, 10 yrs old, (so in bsja could still be in 12 2 classes) tall and skinny.

Perhaps, according to the fail, her perfect mount would be my 15.2 TB. they are perfectly suited ratio wise.

God dammit that paper is so retarded it actually makes me want to kill myself. There really is no help for this country whilst people still read that horse you know what
 
God dammit that paper is so retarded it actually makes me want to kill myself. There really is no help for this country whilst people still read that horse you know what

Is it not more 'retarded' to confuse a newspaper with a research paper published by the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour?
 
Is it not more 'retarded' to confuse a newspaper with a research paper published by the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour?

That is a newspaper article about a journal paper. A research paper would have an abstract, an introduction, methods I could scrutinise and results for the same purpose.

All newspapers regularly misrepresent journal articles either for the hard sell or because the journalist writing it has absolutely no idea what they are reading.

I am a scientist, I know what a paper looks like, I read them for a living. But thanks for the concern that I might be confused ;)

I would read the journal article but, as usual, the retards at the Mail haven't bothered to link to it or supply a proper reference for me to use to find it.

ETA: without wishing to disrespect the author I wouldn't be overly concerned either! Her previous publications are in all kinds of weird and wacky things like whether the whorls a horse has makes it more likely to weave ( I am paraphrasing).
 
Last edited:
I am a scientist, I know what a paper looks like, I read them for a living. But thanks for the concern that I might be confused ;)

I would read the journal article but, as usual, the retards at the Mail haven't bothered to link to it or supply a proper reference for me to use to find it.

I'm a master of science myself.

The article is an entirely factual summary of the paper with verbatim quotation from related experts. There is no editorial spin that I can see. You're just as likely to read the same report in any other newspaper.

Since you seem unwilling to find the website of a named publication on the internet I will assist you with a single-click link to the research, though if you are a new scientist you will need to register before you can view it).

Click me.
 
Weight tape for mine is 379kg but no idea of true weight but I am 5'3 and 55kg so I'm well over the 10% dailyfail's report!
 
I would read the journal article but, as usual, the retards at the Mail haven't bothered to link to it or supply a proper reference for me to use to find it.

ETA: without wishing to disrespect the author I wouldn't be overly concerned either! Her previous publications are in all kinds of weird and wacky things like whether the whorls a horse has makes it more likely to weave ( I am paraphrasing).

It's behind a paywall and not worth 15USD to me ;)

The entire journal is full of weird and wacky nonscience to me...
 
I'm 5ft11 and weigh 66kg and my horse in 580kg so i'd have to have BMI of 16 to be in the 10% range, I don't think that that's healthy :eek:
 
I'm a master of science myself.

The article is an entirely factual summary of the paper with verbatim quotation from related experts. There is no editorial spin that I can see. You're just as likely to read the same report in any other newspaper.

Since you seem unwilling to find the website of a named publication on the internet I will assist you with a single-click link to the research, though if you are a new scientist you will need to register before you can view it).

Click me.

If you are a scientist yourself, surely you are aware of the DM's reputation and history in misrepresenting published research? And indeed, of the importance of correct and appropriate referencing (yes I did track the article down myself, but I shouldn't have to)...

Will just have to take your word for it, personally I feel that it's the responsibility of good science to be published open access, particularly where there is no commercial issue and only welfare standards to gain.
 
I'm a master of science myself.

The article is an entirely factual summary of the paper with verbatim quotation from related experts. There is no editorial spin that I can see. You're just as likely to read the same report in any other newspaper.

Since you seem unwilling to find the website of a named publication on the internet I will assist you with a single-click link to the research, though if you are a new scientist you will need to register before you can view it).

Click me.

I am not a new scientist but as I am a molecular biologist not a psychology student I don't, funnily enough, have a subscription to some bizarre animal behaviour journal so I can't read it. As you can probably tell from the fact I know about her previous work already, I am capable of finding a bit of research should I wish to.

But I really shouldn't have to. That is the job of the eds at the Fail. One should, of course, always cite one's sources after all. Every scientist knows that don't they?

I also don't actually want to read it based on her previous publications, her institution and the subject matter ;)
 
Last edited:
Given that I'm at least 20kg overweight for my boy already, I think I'll just have another glass of wine and some more chocolate...!
 
Will just have to take your word for it, personally I feel that it's the responsibility of good science to be published open access, particularly where there is no commercial issue and only welfare standards to gain.

Quite. A drug discovery is one thing as there is money at stake but seriously? 15 bucks for that bit of utterly inconsequential fluff. Absurd.
 
Ahh, you're that type of scientist ;)

Yeah, the kind that actually has science to do and can't spend hours reading rubbish which isn't related to their field in any way shape or form.

When it makes it into Nature I'll reappraise eh?

So what type of scientist are you? I bet you're a chemist.
 
Top