Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-06-09, 12:05 PM   #1
RedDeMartini
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
200 lbs is Overweight?

I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.

The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
RedDeMartini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:06 PM   #2
Barrettscv 
Have bike, will travel
 
Barrettscv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edwardsville, Illinois
Bikes: Colnago Nuova Mexico, Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Pinarello Gavia, Schwinn Paramount, Motobecane Grand Record, Peugeot PX10, Serotta Nova X, Simoncini Cyclocross Special, Origin8 monstercross, Pedal Force CG2 and CX2
Posts: 10,586
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
I wish I had your issues

200 lbs can be healthy. My Doctor insisted I was healthy at 245 lbs. But I am losing wieght anyway and the overall improvement is great.
__________________
When I ride my bike I feel free and happy and strong. I'm liberated from the usual nonsense of day to day life. Solid, dependable, silent, my bike is my horse, my fighter jet, my island, my friend. Together we will conquer that hill and thereafter the world.

Last edited by Barrettscv; 04-06-09 at 12:46 PM.
Barrettscv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:12 PM   #3
chewybrian 
"Florida Man"
 
chewybrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Florida
Bikes: '66 Raleigh Superbe, 80 Nishiki Maxima, 07 Gary Fisher Utopia, 09 Surly LHT
Posts: 1,577
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
I could not agree more about the 200 pound limit. I lost 115 pounds to get to 215, and more weight loss would not necessarily be healthy for me.

The second part, well... It's a sport if you take it to that level, or a leisure activity if you wish. Like swimming, golf, many other activities, it's either or both.
__________________
Campione Del Mondo Immaginario
chewybrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:17 PM   #4
gus69
Senior Member
 
gus69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Køge; Denmark
Bikes: only 8 or 9 at present.
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
200/91 kg lbs doesn't have to be overweight. But most bike manufacturers only test wheels/ parts
up to 85 kg and therefore only guarantee to that rider+ bike weight.
We might need stronger wheels and frames, that's why we are Clydesdales but not necessary overweight.
gus69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:34 PM   #5
yeamac
Senior Member
 
yeamac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central IL
Bikes: 2013 Marin Pioneer Trail MTB; 2012 Marin Verona T3; 2012 Marin Bridgeway; 2008 Cannondale Touring 2; 1996 Cannondale MT1000 tandem
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?
http://www.weightwatchers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Check out the chart at this link. According to this info, one would need to be 6'-3" or taller to not be overweight at 200+ pounds. Even at 6'-6" a person would be considered to be in a healthy weight range from 173 to 216 pounds.

My guess is the majority of people over 200 pounds and classified as clydesdales ARE overweight.
yeamac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:39 PM   #6
bautieri
Downtown Spanky Brown
 
bautieri's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Camp Hill, Pennsyltucky
Bikes: 14 Motobecane Phantom Cross Pro 2000 Kona Lana'I
Posts: 2,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I believe that the 200lb mark was originally set as a race category not a measurement of rider ability nor equipment specification. Just like racing is divided by engine size or how weight division is amongst boxers.

So head out there and kick some skinny butt
bautieri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:47 PM   #7
theetruscan
Senior Member
 
theetruscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.

The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
You're an outlier. I'm an outlier for all intents, and I'm a few pounds overweight at 200 pounds with a reasonable amount of muscle.

Yes, of course there will be people who are healthy at weights far outside the norm, but that's because your body is far outside the norm. Plenty of tall people are also fairly light because they're narrow framed, being tall doesn't mean 200 pounds is healthy (nor does it mean it is unhealthy). 200 pounds and tall won't be emaciated unless you're extremely broad, or you're saying tall is 6'6"+
theetruscan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:49 PM   #8
squirtdad
Senior Member
 
squirtdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Bikes: '89 Miyata 1400, '82 nishiski (current utilty/commuter project)
Posts: 4,141
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeamac View Post
http://www.weightwatchers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Check out the chart at this link. According to this info, one would need to be 6'-3" or taller to not be overweight at 200+ pounds. Even at 6'-6" a person would be considered to be in a healthy weight range from 173 to 216 pounds.

My guess is the majority of people over 200 pounds and classified as clydesdales ARE overweight.
Remember charts are averages.......individuals will vary.....my doctor did a very simple screening test, had me grasp my wrist with thumb and index finger and see if they went all the way around the wrist and touched or not. The idea is to get a feel of bone size.......he said based on that he would target a goal weight of 200 pounds for me, but would have targeted 175 or so if I had been able to completely circle my wrist.... Now I am far from that goal, and may be he is a quack, but there are individual differences.
squirtdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 12:52 PM   #9
CbadRider
Administrator
 
CbadRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the bridge with Picard
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
Posts: 5,962
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
The Clyde/Athena categories aren't just for cycling. They apply to running and triathlon as well. I believe they were started to give the bigger folks their own category and a more level playing field. In running events the category is mainy for bigger runners, not necessarily overweight ones.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerum 525 View Post
Now get on your cheap bike and give me a double century. You walking can of Crisco!!

Forum Guidelines *click here*
CbadRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 01:01 PM   #10
youcoming
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ontario Canada
Bikes: Opus Andante/Parleez5i/Burley Tosa Tandem
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I really think it depends on the person. I myself wiegh in just under 220lbs at 6'1" and yes I consider myself overwieght but by no means unfit. Kinda hard to explain. I have a gut yes but I work with tons of guys who are skinny little guys that a stiff breeze would blow away who are winded after going up a flight of stairs. Am I fat, you bet, but don't make it decide I'm unfit. And to be honest yes I want to wiegh less and I'm getting to under 200 slowly but surely. Mainly because of my cycling addiction. Most will be fat but do actually want to trim some upper body muscle, takes a lot of oxygen to feed those un cycling specific muscles. My workouts now consist of yoga and core exercises.
youcoming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 02:25 PM   #11
EGUNWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Bikes: Surly. 4 of them.
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6'4". If I drop down to under 200, I'll look really really bad, like famine victim bad. Around 215-220's probably where I need to be, and I'm working down to that.
EGUNWT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 03:03 PM   #12
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't go by charts, calculations, tables and any other nonsense. I go by what my doctor tells me.

My blood pressure is great. My midday HR is in the low 50s. My respiratory exchage volumes are fantastic. No cholesterol issues. Good fasting blood sugar. Aside from being nearsighted and having arthritic hands, I'm in great shape...

At 6'6", 250 pounds, and over 15% bodyfat. Could I stand to lose a few pounds? Sure. I'm slowly working my way back down to 10% or less, but it's apparently not impacting my health, no matter what the most recent doomsayer health magazines want to tell me about how my 40" waist is going to give me diabetes/cancer/aneurisms/harpooned or whatever.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 03:29 PM   #13
cohophysh
fishologist
 
cohophysh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Bikes: Diamondback MTB; Leader 736R
Posts: 1,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CbadRider View Post
The Clyde/Athena categories aren't just for cycling. They apply to running and triathlon as well. I believe they were started to give the bigger folks their own category and a more level playing field. In running events the category is mainy for bigger runners, not necessarily overweight ones.
who let you out of foo
__________________
We cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them. A.E.

1990 Diamond Back MTB
2007 Leader 736R
www.cohocyclist.blogspot.com
http://www.loopd.com/members/cohocyclist/Default.aspx


cohophysh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 04:06 PM   #14
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1
Posts: 3,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
First of all, being a Clyde has nothing to do with being fit or overweight. It's simply a category of athletes that do not fit within the norm for endurance athletes. The original Clydesdale category used to start at 185 lbs. If you visit the road racing and triathalon forums you will find a patern that suggests athletes at or above this weight are competitively disadvantaged. Plain and simple, to climb well on a bike, lighter is better, to a point. It's didn't initially have anything to do with a lack of fitness. It was just a way to recognize athletes that were particularly fit but not of the necessary physical frame to be competitive against 135-165 lb 5'9"-6'2" spiders.

It has since, also been adopted by those participants that are not fit. So, a lot of the discussions around here revolve around the challenges of folks who are looking to loose weight. Keep in mind that any of those charts that are at all based on BMI (body mass index) are hugely inaccurate and horrible for people who are not of average build and height. Specially those who are taller than average. At 6'5", 42" waist, 54" chest, but weighing more than I would like to, not many would look at me and call me "obese" as the bmi charts do. My goal weight of 250#, just gets me into "overweight". To become "normal" I would have to get down to 215 or so. That weight would be completely "undoable" for me. No doctor would ever suggest that 215 would be a healthy weight for me. So, with regard to BMI, don't pay attention to it. Instead, look to measure you fitness and health, with regard to your body fat percentage, resistance to illness, and physical strength(measured however you like).

With regard to "geared for the ultra light": Let's face it. When it comes to competing at an elite level, "it is". That's not to say that any and everyone can't enjoy cycling. We can,.....just not at a level that is likely to see us win at an elite level. The exception for someone of a build like yourself might be track sprinting or criterium racing(if it lacks significant climbs). But, when it comes to road racing and long climbs, long limbed (for torque) but extremely thin and light (for better power to weight) riders will consistantly dominate.

It's still fun to drop the all too frequent poser :-) !!!!!
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 04:47 PM   #15
EasyEd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Marysville WA
Bikes:
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
EasyEd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 04:55 PM   #16
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.

The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
For here, it's not that 200lbs is overweight, it depends on so many factors, the same one that make people snicker at the monthly BMI thread. There are riders that are short and muscular, riders that are short and fat, riders that are tall and skinny (if your 7' tall, 200lbs would probably make you look like a fishing rod with a head on the end).

All however have the same problem, most bicycle equipment is designed for a guy who is 5'10" and 150-170lbs, so if your 200lbs then whether your 4% body fat or 40% body fat, you have the same issues. I happen to have the 5'10" part down (5'9½ actually), but at 220lb I need to work on the other part I think that makes me a rather average C&A member, most of us would like to get those extra few pounds off, and the weather isn't helping, yesterday was sunny and 10℃, with little wind, had other commitments that meant riding wasn't really possible other then testing a new bike computer Today it's 0℃ with a nasty North wind and it's snowing
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 05:15 PM   #17
longbeachgary
Senior Member
 
longbeachgary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Beautiful Long Beach California
Bikes: Eddy Merckx Sallanches 64 (2); Eddy Merckx MXL; 2012 CAAD10; 2013 Cannondale CAAD10 DI2, The Black Mambo
Posts: 3,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
I was at the Long Beach bicycle grand prix over the weekend as a spectator and most of these guys are rail thin. Former teammate of Lance's (Tony Cruz) was there and he probably weights in at no more than 135-140. He is short but even so. There were also more people than you would expect that were kind-of big to be running around in team gear riding against the skinny guys.
longbeachgary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 05:21 PM   #18
cooleric1234
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Aurora, CO
Bikes: CAAD9-1, Windsor Cliff 29er
Posts: 1,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGUNWT View Post
I'm 6'4". If I drop down to under 200, I'll look really really bad, like famine victim bad. Around 215-220's probably where I need to be, and I'm working down to that.
While I agree with the sentiment I might disagree with the numbers. I'm 6'5" and a year and a half ago I weighed up to 235 lbs. I didn't look that bad, I had to be wearing something fairly tight (like a bike jersey) to see a belly. I thought if I lost 20 lbs I'd be perfect.

Well, I started losing weight. I'm not at 185 and I could still stand to lose more weight (body fat around 12%). I know a lot depends on your body type though. I'm not very muscular, so that would make a big difference.
cooleric1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 05:30 PM   #19
billydonn
Council of the Elders
 
billydonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Omaha, NE
Bikes: 1990 Schwinn Crosscut, 5 Lemonds
Posts: 3,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewybrian View Post
...
The second part, well... It's a sport if you take it to that level, or a leisure activity if you wish. Like swimming, golf, many other activities, it's either or both.
A good way to look at it is as "Serious Leisure":

Serious leisure is the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer core activity that is highly substantial, interesting, and fulfilling and where, in the typical case, participants find a career in acquiring and expressing a combination of its special skills, knowledge, and experience (Stebbins, 1992, p.3). The adjective "serious" (a word Stebbins's research respondents often used) embodies such qualities as earnestness, sincerity, importance, and carefulness. This adjective, basically a folk term, signals the importance of these three types of activity in the everyday lives of participants, in that pursuing the three eventually engenders deep self-fulfillment.
billydonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 06:34 PM   #20
heckler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
weight watcher site says 147-184 for 6'.... while 184 is attainable and woud be very fit looking for me 147 would be showing alot of bones and require losing over 50lbs of muscle.
heckler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 06:58 PM   #21
Nightshade
Humvee of bikes =Worksman
 
Nightshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 5,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Care not what others think. Your guide is how you feel and if your doctor has issues with your
health. Nobody else matters.
__________________
My preferred bicycle brand is.......WORKSMAN CYCLES
I dislike clipless pedals on any city bike since I feel they are unsafe.

Originally Posted by krazygluon
Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred, which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?
Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 07:30 PM   #22
dlester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Marysville, WA
Bikes: Trek Portland/Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo/LeMond Versailles
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It isn't hard to find information about male body types. This article is why the BMI chart makes no sense. It is just an average, and depending on what kind of body type you have, you aren't very average.

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...endomorph.html
dlester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-09, 10:06 PM   #23
yeamac
Senior Member
 
yeamac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central IL
Bikes: 2013 Marin Pioneer Trail MTB; 2012 Marin Verona T3; 2012 Marin Bridgeway; 2008 Cannondale Touring 2; 1996 Cannondale MT1000 tandem
Posts: 1,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlester View Post
It isn't hard to find information about male body types. This article is why the BMI chart makes no sense. It is just an average, and depending on what kind of body type you have, you aren't very average.

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...endomorph.html
Correct me if I'm misreading the information, but I don't see a discrepancy between the BMI weight chart and your article. At the bottom of the BMI chart it says: Weight ranges are used to provide information about the range of weights with the lowest risk of developing weight-related conditions. Which is why this is called a "healthy" weight range. Like you say, it is just an average. It seems to take into account the 3 various body types from the link you reference. For more muscular types, you would be near the top of the weight range (as am I). If you are not so muscular, you would be near the lower end of the spectrum. Sure, you can be overweight and fit, but so far those clydes who have commented in this thread about their weight all seem to say they could loose a few pounds.

I got down to 193 about a year ago, and at 6'-1", according to the BMI chart, was just barely overweight (189 top of the range). And guess what, I still had a gut at 193 pounds. Now I've crept back up to around 206 and my gut is even bigger and I'm putting a strain on all the new clothes I had to buy. I'm very fit -- I rode a 125 mile ride last Friday with an 18.5 mph computer average. I rode a 50 mile ride the next day in a paceline with a 21.3 mph average. But, to the original question, yeah, I still say 200 pounds for almost anyone under 6'-3" is going to be overweight. Maybe not by a large margin, but still wanting to loose a few pounds anyway and reduce the size of that gut.
yeamac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-09, 05:38 AM   #24
baron von trail 
Senior Member
 
baron von trail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Ohio
Bikes: 3 good used ones
Posts: 3,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
At 6'3", with large boned frame, 200/198 is perfect for me. I'm a bit above that right now as I drop from a high of 225 lbs closer to 215. But, I have read more than one chart that says I ought to be weighing 180 lbs or so.

My dad, who at 67 is retired and rides 50 to 75 miles a day minimum (every day), weighs 205. That man has not an ounce of fat. Go figure!

BTW: those same stupid charts insist that boney-looking Obama is in the upper range his ideal weight. That is just crazy.

To cut through this insanity: I go more by the waist size, using the weight thing more as a barometer than as something etched in stone. I aim for 34" on the waist; find that I can live with 36"; start working harder when I hit 38", and make damned sure I never reach 40".
baron von trail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-09, 06:14 AM   #25
StephenH
Uber Goober
 
StephenH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas area, Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 11,280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
I might point out that Clydesdale horse are big horses, not just fat horses.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
StephenH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:24 PM.