Too fat to ride?

mmmm Mongoose - so says that there are 14 handers who could support the OP at 14 stone and then when others suggest that a 14 hander might not be big enough , then asks why we are back onto 14 handers as the thread moved away from this ???
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about the balance of the thread. You claim it weighs heavily (pun intended) on the side that says '**** it' ride anything!
 
Kallibear said:
Wagtail: I have more Highlands in a 2mile radius than JFTD will have in her county (the joys of living in Scotland. Shame I'm not a big Highland fan ;)) I can promise you that a slim fit 14hh Highland will weight 500kg. My own resident Highland was a 14hh youngster, who hadn't filled out yet at 4yrs old. He weight 490kg at a lean looking 2.5 condition score. A smaller 13.2hh will be no less than 400kg, more likely 450kg. You do get more 'Connie' looking ones that will weight a bit less, esp down south, but they're not desirable up here.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I had a very tubby 14.2 cob here that weighed 530kg at his fattest. We got him down to 450kg. But I have no experience of highlands. They do not LOOK to be heavier than that 14.2 cob, but appearances can be deceiving.

Mongoose11 said:
Perhaps get on to DryRot then, he's our resident breeder.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Dry Rot bred highlands, but did know JFTD owns a couple, hence why I commented. I didn't know Dry Rot was a 'he' either.
 
JFTD said:
I did my PhD at the Royal Veterinary College if that's good enough for you?

Not that it's any of your business, but as a "real" scientist, I don't consider anyone with a degree in ES to know their backside from their elbow, scientifically speaking anyway :)
Click to expand...

Appreciate that you may not have anything to add from a scientific / actual evidence point of view, I did ask you politely and its your perogative to refuse of course, But I do wonder why you then felt that you needed to let us know that you have a PHD if your additional knowledge in this field cannot add to the debate which it clearly cant.

In addition, thought your insult to people who have Equine Science qualifications was a bit much really.
 
cobgoblin said:
There is a world of difference between a 14 hander and a 14.2.
Click to expand...

See that is one thing I am not really sure about, especially given different back confos- high withers/low wither etc.

Pointing out that someone has a big scientific background just indicates to others with similar backgrounds that they are used to not taking scientific papers just at what they say but taking a large cohort of them on a range of topics and then formulating a cohesive argument.
 
I also think you can start to think about 'science' a bit differently, and how much of it generates more questions than it answers.
 
Wagtail said:
Thank you. I had a very tubby 14.2 cob here that weighed 530kg at his fattest. We got him down to 450kg. But I have no experience of highlands. They do not LOOK to be heavier than that 14.2 cob, but appearances can be deceiving.
Click to expand...

They are indeed deceiving and uselesw you've seen a big Highland up close, they look like less hairy cobs. However they are generally much deeper through the girth and loins than a cob. In fact a lot of cobs aren't great weight carriers.
My friend has a Highland and a Comtios mare (french draught breed) From a distance they are almost identical in build. It's not until you get close that you realise the Comtios is 16.2 and the Highland only 14.1. In fact the closest thing would be a Percheron scaled down to 14hh.

Back on topic slightly: the OP asked about a 14hh pony as a weight carrier. The average 14hh pony, inc cobs, wouldn't really be up to that. Except maybe a Highland. But even then I'd recommend a 14.2 version.
 
ester said:
See that is one thing I am not really sure about, especially given different back confos- high withers/low wither etc.

Pointing out that someone has a big scientific background just indicates to others with similar backgrounds that they are used to not taking scientific papers just at what they say but taking a large cohort of them on a range of topics and then formulating a cohesive argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need a scientific background to understand that data can be interpreted etc and does not need to be taken at face value. Also while you might consider the 2008 study to be flawed, I'm sure it has more to support it that personal opinion and common sense which are not based on any scientific validity.
 
Going off on a complete tangent (sorry!) but I recently came across this article:- http://thehorsesback.com/equine-arthritis/

which studies the incidence of elbow arthritis in the horse; interestingly it is found only in horses which have been ridden/driven, which to me suggests the horse's muscoskeletal system could well be under stress in ways we don't even know about yet. I think if that is the case, then for our horses sake, we need to consider carefully what we ask them to do, just because they are willing doesn't mean that they aren't being damaged, and keeping the riders weight to a minimum can only be beneficial.

As an aside I have a 14hh fell which is very similar in build to JFTD's lightweight highland, she weightapes at between 410 -430 kg as a comparison.
 
SG I'm not sure you were all that polite to Ester though who is equally well qualified to comment scientifically - which was my point in the first place, had you cared not to circumvent that minor detail. And incidentally, I didn't bring up the question of qualification, I was merely using mine to debunk your claim that someone "in the field" could offer some kind of silver bullet argument which would put the debate to rest, or at least, inform it significantly. No opinion can do that. And no evidence can until it had been published and repeated either...
 
touchstone said:
As an aside I have a 14hh fell which is very similar in build to JFTD's lightweight highland, she weightapes at between 410 -430 kg as a comparison.
Click to expand...

That was my point about Highland V Fell earlier. My friends 14hh Fell looks quite like a Highland from the side (with more fluff) but weights a good 100kg-150kg less than a similar condition and height Highland. A Highland is by far the most substantial of the Natives (and therefore a weight carrier) so if the OP does still want a 14hh pony (although by now she's most likely put off horses for life! ) then a Highland would be one to look at, whereas I don't think the much-less-solid Fells and similar would be up to a 14st rider plus tack. Which is all the poor OP wanted to know in the first place!
 
JFTD said:
I did my PhD at the Royal Veterinary College if that's good enough for you?

Not that it's any of your business, but as a "real" scientist, I don't consider anyone with a degree in ES to know their backside from their elbow, scientifically speaking anyway :)
Click to expand...

JFTD I must say, as someone who has mainly lurked for many year and followed many of your threads with your very nice highlands, I'm disappointed and pretty bloody offended by that sweeping and down right bitchy statement you've implied about those of us who have worked hard to gain Equine Science degrees.
 
I'm sorry you find it offensive, but it is a fairly commonly held opinion in many fields of science.
 
JFTD said:
One of mine is a connie-style lightweight. He tapes only slightly less than my more traditional one, and I'd be surprised if he's way off 500kg even as a skinny pocket rocket!

11246031_356844001191319_7596878895640223003_n.png
Click to expand...

So what does he TAPE at? I know taping is not always accurate, but it does give us an idea.
 
Y
ester said:
See that is one thing I am not really sure about, especially given different back confos- high withers/low wither etc.

.
Click to expand...


I think one has to be sensible about the comparison and compare like to like. Most cobs have very little wither. I will remember to be more pedantic in future.
 
JFTD said:
I'm sorry you find it offensive, but it is a fairly commonly held opinion in many fields of science.
Click to expand...

Just popping in to say I agree with this.

The weight thing, the OP has said they will be looking for bigger and agreed that getting a bigger horse is better
 
Last edited:
I've recently become more aware of Highlands (I'm a fell person) and it is incredible how solid they are - i can see a well muscled, big built highland tipping the scales at well over 550kg. For reference my fell is 13.1 / 13.2, in regular work, competes BD and weight-wise is the best he's ever looked (not show-ring condition, but actual healthy weight condition) and he was 460kg on the weighbridge. He's ranged between 440 and 460kg for the past 3 years and tends to look just a little scrawny when he's down the bottom end of the range.
 
JFTD said:
I'm sorry you find it offensive, but it is a fairly commonly held opinion in many fields of science.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the hijack - just wanted to say this is definitely true in my experience too - our lab would always pick someone with a 'regular' science degree over an equine science graduate. Different fields may preferentially go for an equine science graduate, but not in my experience in pharma or academia.

ETS: I'm sorry if I offend anyone - it's no reflection on anyone with an ES degree, it just seems to be the way of it.
 
Last edited:
Wagtail, DryRot bred JFTD's I believe. I'd certainly be knocking on his door if I wanted a Highland! His stallion is outrageously gorgeous.
 
JFTD said:
I'm sorry you find it offensive, but it is a fairly commonly held opinion in many fields of science.
Click to expand...

It was a disgustingly offensive comment.
As is stating ones qualifications on a public forum in the hope it gives one more kudos.
 
cobgoblin said:
It was a disgustingly offensive comment.
As is stating ones qualifications on a public forum in the hope it gives one more kudos.
Click to expand...

I took it more as proof of reasonable intellect. I'm willing to offer kudos to anyone determined/pedantic enough to get themselves a PHD!

Disgustingly offensive? Jeeps - sheltered life?
 
Thanks for getting my point NN! Not for Kudos at all just as pointing out the reasons why you might appear more critical of the 'science' than others.

The same scientific studies get brought up on this topic several times over. I just think it is important they are not taking ad verbatim/at face value etc. As is the case for a lot of other equine based issues/studies discussed on here.

And although common sense is never a substitute for great controlled results sometimes it has a place, otherwise my horse would still have shoes on and be wonky ;).

I've always felt a bit sorry for ES graduates knowing what they usually cover but that they are often looked down on in industry but it is the case.
 
Last edited:
OP, please for a moment stop considering what the horse or pony can carry and think about what you ARE carrying. At 14 stone and only 5'2" you are very seriously overweight. You may be young enough to get away with it at the moment but your joints will be ageing faster than a person in the range of a healthy weight and you get tired faster, plain and simple. I'm 5'4" and currently ashamed to say I weigh not too far off 11 stone. 8 years ago I was a size 8 and under 9 stone. I actually get more exercise than I was then and I eat a low fat, low sugar diet, as I always have. I don't drink soft drinks other than fresh juices and haven't had a takeaway in more than 20 years. My weight gain is, unfortunately, entirely due to the menopause. Despite my very best efforts I cannot lose any weight and frankly it is only because I exercise so much that I'm not still gaining it. This could very well be you in the future so please step up now and do your very best to shift some weight. Your body will thank you for it, and your horse most definitely will.
 
cobgoblin said:
It was a disgustingly offensive comment.
As is stating ones qualifications on a public forum in the hope it gives one more kudos.
Click to expand...

I don't need any more kudos, thanks. I'm more than happy with what I have.

I'm genuinely sorry that the poster upthread took it personally, but, as other posters have confirmed, it is a common enough opinion. I have had enough experience with ES graduates and students to inform my opinion, and sadly the local Agricultural College which churns them out does little to prepare them for a scientific career (in my opinion).

eta - the other colleges which teach ES may do a better job. I couldn't comment on those. I can say, with a degree of certainty, that a conventional science degree would be considered more desirable in all the workplaces I've been in previously.
 
It's interesting from the weights thread that at 730kg AA's Martha would carry 23 stone, at 15.2. (weight taped 650 I think).
 
Mongoose11 said:
I took it more as proof of reasonable intellect. I'm willing to offer kudos to anyone determined/pedantic enough to get themselves a PHD!

Disgustingly offensive? Jeeps - sheltered life?
Click to expand...

Yes I think it was disgustingly offensive to those that have done Equine Science, it was a put- down of their qualification.
I've known some pretty dim people that have a PhD and some very bright and observant people that have no qualifications at all.
Equine science seems to be a relatively new degree, I certainly don't remember it being around many moons ago when I was a student, degrees moving into 'new' areas take some time to carve their way. The young people that are studying or have studied this now, may well become the leaders in their field that finally answer the questions we all keep asking on here ( and about time too!). They don't need to be told that they are inferior to more traditional and established scientific areas.
Btw, I haven't led a sheltered life at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top