Fat butts revisited

Fat butts revisited

Post by Wendy Wishar » Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:00:00


Haven't visited this newsgroup in a while, but I have a good reason for
checking out the "fat butt" stories.

I'm a little disturbed by some of the suggestions that excess weight on the
part of the rider may be harmful to the horse. I find this offensive.

I have a saddle-broke Clydesdale and two saddle-broke standardbreds. The
Clyde, obviously is heavy and strong, and is not troubled by the fact that
although my drivers' license puts me at 180, my real weight is likely nearer
300. The standardbreds are another matter, and I bring them and their
history up because I just find weight limits so discriminatory and
unneccesary. One of the STBs, Sylvester, came to me off a meat truck. His
feet and legs were so bad that he could barely carry his own weight while
racing. With corrective shoeing and a bit of rest, he now carries me just
about anywhere I want to go, for as long as I want to go there, and has no
problems. The other STB is a mare, much lighter and more delicate than
Sylvester, and her problems were much like his, although even more severe.
When she came off the track, she couldn't hold a 100-pound rider without
falling, let alone me. Again, with corrective shoeing, she's more than
enough horse to carry me.

If there's a problem with a horse holding a heavy person, look to the care
the horse has had. It's probably going to have trouble with a light person
as well. I think a sound horse of almost any size can hold a rider of almost
any size. If I can bring back a horse that can't hold any rider, and have it
hold me, then I have to say that trail ride providers who place weight
limits likely have less of a problem with the condition of the rider than
they have with the condition of their horses and with their own attitudes
toward fat people.

Us "big folks" have enough trouble without arbitrary and discriminatory
weight limits. People, lighten up! God knows we're trying to.

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Rachel Swa » Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:00:00

As has been mentioned previously on this thread, it *should* have
more to do with level of fitness, balance, control than actual weight.

--
Rachel & Belle
Portuguese Bend - Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
rachelswan at earthlink dot net


Quote:
>A few year ago, at a riding stable, my friend's mother was told she
>couldn't ride, because she was too fat about 5'2" and 275lbs.  She stayed
>at the car while everyone else rode.  I also heard of a heavyset 6'5" man
>that was allowed to ride there.  They weighed the same amount, but our
>society doesn't see it that way.  It's too bad.  She really wanted to ride.


 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by J Bair » Sun, 15 Feb 1998 04:00:00

A few year ago, at a riding stable, my friend's mother was told she
couldn't ride, because she was too fat about 5'2" and 275lbs.  She stayed
at the car while everyone else rode.  I also heard of a heavyset 6'5" man
that was allowed to ride there.  They weighed the same amount, but our
society doesn't see it that way.  It's too bad.  She really wanted to ride.

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Tina M Noy » Sun, 15 Feb 1998 04:00:00

: Haven't visited this newsgroup in a while, but I have a good reason for
: checking out the "fat butt" stories.

: I'm a little disturbed by some of the suggestions that excess weight on the
: part of the rider may be harmful to the horse. I find this offensive.

A healthy, mature horse who is used to carrying a large person should have
absolutely no trouble. A 300 pound person is still a fraction of the
weight of the horse - it would be like the difference between you
carrying a backpack with one textbook in it versus three textbooks. You
may notice the difference, but it won't hurt you, and if you do it every
day, you'll be strong enough to take it!

--
Tina Noyes
http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~peak/peaksters/tina/

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Richard Bish » Sun, 15 Feb 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>As has been mentioned previously on this thread, it *should* have
>more to do with level of fitness, balance, control than actual weight.

>--
>Rachel & Belle
>Portuguese Bend - Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
>rachelswan at earthlink dot net



>>A few year ago, at a riding stable, my friend's mother was told she
>>couldn't ride, because she was too fat about 5'2" and 275lbs.  She
stayed
>>at the car while everyone else rode.  I also heard of a heavyset 6'5"
man
>>that was allowed to ride there.  They weighed the same amount, but
our
>>society doesn't see it that way.  It's too bad.  She really wanted to

ride.

Reminds me of when I went to *** Horse Camp for the first time.  I
was considerably heavier at the time, at least 50 more pounds.  They
took one look at me and put me on a draft-cross, even though I had
explained to them I could ride and there were men there who obviously
were bigger than I.  After I managed to get this huge horse into a
collected trot, they decided I COULD ride and put me on one of the
smaller horses and even brought out a former regional champion mare for
me.  I was a bit miffed, though, they obviously just were going to
assume I was a pitiful rider, just because I was overweight.

Sue

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Terry von Gea » Sun, 15 Feb 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>: Haven't visited this newsgroup in a while, but I have a good reason for
>: checking out the "fat butt" stories.
>: I'm a little disturbed by some of the suggestions that excess weight on the
>: part of the rider may be harmful to the horse. I find this offensive.
>A healthy, mature horse who is used to carrying a large person should have
>absolutely no trouble. A 300 pound person is still a fraction of the
>weight of the horse - it would be like the difference between you
>carrying a backpack with one textbook in it versus three textbooks. You
>may notice the difference, but it won't hurt you, and if you do it every
>day, you'll be strong enough to take it!

A large fraction. 30% of a typical 1000 pound horse. A horse
should, typically, pack around 20-25% of it's own weight. That's
total load including tack as well as whatever porker of a rider
might climb on board.

20-25% represents the upper limit, not the optimum operating range.
And that's only valid if the operator can actually ride a horse.
That much excess avoirdupois lurching around out of balance
if generally considered to be a Bad Thing.

If you weigh 100 units and your textbook weighs 1 unit you're dealing
with numbers an order of magnitude smaller that a horse toting
a lardass flatlander.

--
Terry                A proper signature should sum up one's entire
                     philosophy and, at the same time, cause anyone who
                     reads it to question everything in which they
                     believe.

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by <p.. » Sun, 15 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> A large fraction. 30% of a typical 1000 pound horse. A horse
> should, typically, pack around 20-25% of it's own weight. That's
> total load including tack as well as whatever porker of a rider
> might climb on board.

> 20-25% represents the upper limit, not the optimum operating range.
> And that's only valid if the operator can actually ride a horse.
> That much excess avoirdupois lurching around out of balance
> if generally considered to be a Bad Thing.

A horse in good condition should have no trouble with 20-25% of their body
weight.  30-33% would be a more reasonable limit with a factor for the
experience of the rider.  The big question is what is the horse asked to
do.  Speed, jumps, hills and long periods of riding are more stressing to a
horse than slower rides packing more weight.  

The smaller the horse and the shorter the back; the larger percentage of
their weight they can carry.  Ponies can often carry up to half their body
weight with no problems.  A general rule of thumb is that the riders ***
should never be larger than the horses butt.  

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Kevin Traylo » Sun, 15 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Did anyone catch the issue of Practical Horseman last year when George
Morris *blasted* a young woman for being about 10-15lbs. overweight in the
jumping clinic. I couldn't believe it. She was doing a lovely job and was
not what I would call fat at all.
Jen MacNeill

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by CATHERINE ALEXANDRA PAFO » Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:00:00

<Attributes befor Terry looked a little mangled anyway>

Quote:
>>: I'm a little disturbed by some of the suggestions that excess weight on the
>>: part of the rider may be harmful to the horse. I find this offensive.

>>A healthy, mature horse who is used to carrying a large person should have
>>absolutely no trouble. A 300 pound person is still a fraction of the
>>weight of the horse - it would be like the difference between you
>>carrying a backpack with one textbook in it versus three textbooks.
>A large fraction. 30% of a typical 1000 pound horse. A horse
>should, typically, pack around 20-25% of it's own weight. That's
>total load including tack as well as whatever porker of a rider
>might climb on board.

>20-25% represents the upper limit, not the optimum operating range.
>And that's only valid if the operator can actually ride a horse.
>That much excess avoirdupois lurching around out of balance
>if generally considered to be a Bad Thing.

Absolutely. (And hey, I'm no leightweight either). It's more like the
difference between carrying a 15kg backpack (which most people can do with
ease, at least for moderate distances), and 20kg backpack (which you might
carry but you'd better be conditioned if you want to lug it anywhere) and a
25kg which most people are NOT willing to move anywhere. Every step is starting
to count. For an average person of 75kg that's about the same proportions.

Catja

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Eileen G. Morg » Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:00:00

On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:44:14 -0500, Kevin Traylor

Quote:

>Did anyone catch the issue of Practical Horseman last year when George
>Morris *blasted* a young woman for being about 10-15lbs. overweight in the
>jumping clinic. I couldn't believe it. She was doing a lovely job and was
>not what I would call fat at all.
>Jen MacNeill

Dear George is rather well know for going ape on people who carry a
few extra pounds. I am quite healthy but a large boned person--broad
shoulders and hips, tendancy to get heavy muscling instead of
streamlining when I am fit. I've passed up many chances to take a
clinic with George 'cause of his reputaion. I can get quality
instruction without insults about "my woman's brain" and my weight.
eileen morgan
The Mare's Nest
 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Richard Bish » Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
Morgan) writes:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:44:14 -0500, Kevin Traylor

>>Did anyone catch the issue of Practical Horseman last year when
George
>>Morris *blasted* a young woman for being about 10-15lbs. overweight
in the
>>jumping clinic. I couldn't believe it. She was doing a lovely job and
was
>>not what I would call fat at all.
>>Jen MacNeill
>Dear George is rather well know for going ape on people who carry a
>few extra pounds. I am quite healthy but a large boned person--broad
>shoulders and hips, tendancy to get heavy muscling instead of
>streamlining when I am fit. I've passed up many chances to take a
>clinic with George 'cause of his reputaion. I can get quality
>instruction without insults about "my woman's brain" and my weight.

Gee, sounds like me.  I'd have to remove collarbones to get into
anything less than a size 14 jacket.  Never could wear off the rack
suits since my waist size was size 10 to 12 in 'the good ole days'.
Now, with a bit of middleaged spread, I'm almost balanced.

Quote:
>eileen morgan
>The Mare's Nest

Sue
 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by rachelswa » Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:00:00

I normally wear a size 12 blazer to accommodate
broad shoulders & long arms.  But, in trying
on a variety of dressage coats I've found that
I can barely make a size 16 work!  And then
it's HUGE everywhere else!

I guess I'm going to have to either go custom or
have a bunch of alterations done on a size 16.
Sigh, just more money.

--
Rachel & Belle
Portuguese Bend - Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
rachelswan at earthlink dot net

Quote:

>Gee, sounds like me.  I'd have to remove collarbones to get into
>anything less than a size 14 jacket.  Never could wear off the rack
>suits since my waist size was size 10 to 12 in 'the good ole days'.
>Now, with a bit of middleaged spread, I'm almost balanced.
>Sue

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Joy Rid » Tue, 17 Feb 1998 04:00:00

     The rule at most riding stables is: If you can get on by yourself
you can ride. The reason being is not so much for the horses sake but
for the employees. A lot of times people are refused at stables is
because no one should have to heft large butts into saddles all day.

 
 
 

Fat butts revisited

Post by Turnber » Sun, 22 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> A general rule of thumb is that the riders ***
>should never be larger than the horses butt.  

ROTFLMAO!!!!