PDA

View Full Version : Cytek.... should I???


Nhi
22nd Jul 2005, 10:33 PM
I first became aware of Cytek a couple of years ago and, for the most part, what they said made a lot of sense to me. However, I decided to wait and watch and see how it went. Two years down the line, I still like the sound of it in principle. I know some people who swear by it and others who have experienced some problems. I would give it a try were it not for Cytek's dogmatic 'all or nothing' policy. I just don't believe it when they say that Cytek is suitable for all horses all of the time.

So, has anyone out there been bolder than me and taken the plunge? If so, why, and was it a good thing to do?

Cheers

Bay Mare
23rd Jul 2005, 04:51 AM
I don't know a lot about Cytek to be honest but a lot of the reports that I've heard haven't been good. Like any 'cult' there seem to be people who are completely evangelical about it and others who swear that it is the spawn of the devil.

Some of the negative comments towards are that it's quite radical and invasive. There seems to be little research to back up the way that they trim/shoe and even if I hadn't made the decision to go barefoot I most certainly wouldn't be trying Cytek as there are too many question marks about it and I can see absolutely no reason for the way that they trim.

Their 'ten points':

1. Designed for cold shoeing.
2. No smoke. Sparks or fire to frighten the young or nervous.
3. Better performance.
4. Less shoe loss.
5. Marked improvement in coordination resulting in less injuries.
6. Fewer visits by the Farrier and vet.
7. Safety, health and well being for your horse.
8. Foot problems prevented and existing conditions improved.
9. Significant reduction in annual outlay.
10. Happier horse and rider.

My feelings:

1/2 - so does that means that they fit the foot to the shoe? I know that most 'regular' farriers do anyway, it doesn't make it right. It's a bit like me shaving bits off my feet so that I can get a pair of shoes to fit (might be a good idea as they never seem to do reasonably priced shoes in half sizes).

3/5 - going barefoot can give better performance as can correct 'regular' shoes.

4/9 - I don't base my view on good farriery on how long the shoes stay on and how much money I save. I want to know that the foot is balanced and trimmed correctly, shoed or not.

6 - why are there fewer visits by the farrier? Feet still grow and need to be trimmed surely?

7/8 - is there any research to back this up?

10. Not exactly objective!

May I ask why you want to go the Cytek route? Is there a specific reason?

Yann
23rd Jul 2005, 08:19 AM
I only know what I've read elsewhere, and seen on the website. On the face of it the trim and system are pretty similar to a Natural Balance shoe, the shoe is set from the back of the foot and the toe shortened accordingly and left slightly overhanging so it can wear as it grows. The web on the front of the shoe looks bigger than a NB one though. I'm open minded about the cold shoeing thing too - plenty of problems result from the shoe being fitted to the foot when the trim isn't right, perhaps having to follow a correctly selected shoe may help in that respect.

I do have reservations about the longer interval between shoeings though, the whole foot tends to grow down and forwards, not just the toe, as there's no wear taking place. Whilst the toe might not lengthen over the shoe the whole foot will surely. Some people swear by the system, but it's essentially only as good as the farrier trimming the foot. If you have a cytek farrier in your area why not try it? If it doesn't work out you've nothing to lose and can go back to using a traditional farrier easily enough.

Nhi
23rd Jul 2005, 10:08 AM
Cytek certainly aren't doing themselves any favours on their website and I wouldn't even contemplate trying Cytek on the basis of their '10 reasons'. I have been to several Cytek lecture/demos and dissections where they have shown how the placement of their shoes is beneficial to the horse in that it supports pedal bone and the bony column above. The point of breakover is brought further back allowing for more freedom of movement and, crucially, less stress on the tendons, ligaments and joints above. The weight of the horse is carried, as it was desgned to be, by the sole, frog and digital cushion, and allowing these structures to perform as they should - increased use of the frog & digital cushion creates a better blood supply and an altogether healthier hoof at the end of the day. It is a radical change and ought to be approached as such. I know several people who have gone Cytek and the majority are pleased with the results. But there are those who have had problems - horses lame as soon as the shoes go on for instance. Cytek have an answer for that too, but I don't want to turn this into a sermon! Believe me, many questions have been asked at these demos, by owners, vets and farriers and I haven't heard anything yet which has made me think - no, I definately don't like this!
My current farrier is in high demand and if I go Cytek and it all goes pear-shaped, he won't take me back. Hence my dilemma.

chickflick1066
23rd Jul 2005, 10:54 AM
My instructress uses cytek on all her horses so when I can talk to her again I shall review them for you. Just curious, how much is a set??

Yann
23rd Jul 2005, 05:25 PM
Some of that stuff could equally be said about NB shoes, though the shoe will still restrict the expansion of the foot. I think the think about pedal bone support is at best not proven though. I'm curious as to the explanation about instant lameness in the shoes though, preaching or otherwise?:)

Nhi
23rd Jul 2005, 06:28 PM
Well, allegedly ;) , tradidional rim shoes distort hoof growth - kind of pull the toe forward (esp. if they're left on too long) causing the bond between the sensitive and insensitive laminae to weaken. It can also, allegedly, cause other soft tissue distortion, so that, as I understand it, where you ought to be able to put a cytek shoe nail on a healthy hoof might hit some damaged tissue on a traditionally shod hoof - hence the lameness.

It seems a helluva convenient explanation, but what if they're right!!?

Nhi
23rd Jul 2005, 06:32 PM
Sorry Chickflick - I think they're about £65 a set. Well, they were 2 years ago - I expect it's gone up since then. But... if they last 8 - 10 weeks....