10% weight study a load of rubbish ( international vets say)

maxapple said:
Good sense at last! I'm around 8st and apparently too heavy for all if my horses!
Click to expand...

My vet is out for vacc booster in the week, might ask him directly how many horses he has treated for thre results of carrying too much weight, interesting point and if anyone is going to see the adverse results of weight carrying it would be the vets. Im doing really well getting my own weight down but even though im now in the 11's I would be way too heavy with the 10% rule.
 
I'm sure it is an issue for some horses - but that rule would mean lots of people should be riding 17hh horses! My 14.1 strong and stocky welsh x pony should be carrying a 6.5st rider!
 
Thing is the study did NOT say people were doing damage if they weighed more than 10%. It was saying that it would become a welfare issue if the rider was more than 20% and that 15% was okay. Ten 10% was stated as an optimum for persormance, not welfare reasons. And of COURSE all of our horses could run faster, jump higher etc if we were lighter.

Whilst I agree that 10% is impractical and unrealistic, it does not mean the study is rubbish, just the way people choose to interpret it.
 
You heard it hear first :cool:


Wagtail said:
Thing is the study did NOT say people were doing damage if they weighed more than 10%. It was saying that it would become a welfare issue if the rider was more than 20% and that 15% was okay. Ten 10% was stated as an optimum for persormance, not welfare reasons. And of COURSE all of our horses could run faster, jump higher etc if we were lighter.

Whilst I agree that 10% is impractical and unrealistic, it does not mean the study is rubbish, just the way people choose to interpret it.
Click to expand...

Actually, we have no idea what the research says as it's not published (or at least, not the research which was alluded to in the press coverage). Since the press coverage bore little resemblance to the abstract (which is rubbish anyway by any scientific standards) and the full research is not available for scrutiny, I don't see how you can possibly know what it states?

The study, in so far as we know about it from that abstract, is rubbish since it cites no reference or reasoning for this magical ten percent (if lighter is the key surely 5% is better than 10% - and thus 10% can't be optimum, can it!?), since the data is so limited as to be obsolete, since the mount weights were estimated by weight tape, since the results don't correlate with the press coverage (abstract reports riders with healthy BMI, press coverage labours "obesity" crisis as causation) and so on and so forth.


eta - is lighter always better anyway? If you need your seat for dressage and general equitational control, I bet there's a point where the rider:mount weight ratio is too high to offer any meaningful communication.
 
Last edited:
JFTD said:
Actually, we have no idea what the research says as it's not published (or at least, not the research which was alluded to in the press coverage). Since the press coverage bore little resemblance to the abstract (which is rubbish anyway by any scientific standards) and the full research is not available for scrutiny, I don't see how you can possibly know what it states?

The study, in so far as we know about it from that abstract, is rubbish since it cites no reference or reasoning for this magical ten percent (if lighter is the key surely 5% is better than 10% - and thus 10% can't be optimum, can it!?), since the data is so limited as to be obsolete, since the mount weights were estimated by weight tape, since the results don't correlate with the press coverage (abstract reports riders with healthy BMI, press coverage labours "obesity" crisis as causation) and so on and so forth.


eta - is lighter always better anyway? If you need your seat for dressage and general equitational control, I bet there's a point where the rider:mount weight ratio is too high to offer any meaningful communication.
Click to expand...

You can tell people that til they're blue in the face. They won't listen! ;)

O, and getting on my soap box for a minute; I really wish they would teach kids at school to read and appraise papers. It has to be one of the most useful life skills when it comes to sorting out the science from the nonsense that is published continually in our press. It isn't hard but you do have to be shown the first couple of times. Why o why can't it be part of science lessons?!
 
Although I would agree it is unlikely that being over 10% is that detrimental, that article is no better than the original. It offers no proof that it is NOT detrimental. It has also chosen to ignore the fact that, as pointed out above, the original abstract does not suggest that all those heavier than 10% are damaging.

Until there is a detailed study done to show any effects of heavier/lighter riders we will just have to use some common sense! The media will always be scaremongers so some careful judgement is good when deciding if the latest radical research is useful information.
 
Wagtail said:
I have to admit, even I'm bored now...
Click to expand...

I am too actually... maybe I'll do some ironing... GN is DEFINITELY yawn inducing...

I don't have an ingrown toenail... even if I did I couldn't do much about it. Y'know, I miss being able to do my own toenails. Being preggers does limit you somewhat to where you can reach...

Can't you think of a good thread wagtail? You're good at those.
 
Wagtail said:
Thing is the study did NOT say people were doing damage if they weighed more than 10%. It was saying that it would become a welfare issue if the rider was more than 20% and that 15% was okay. Ten 10% was stated as an optimum for persormance, not welfare reasons. And of COURSE all of our horses could run faster, jump higher etc if we were lighter.

Whilst I agree that 10% is impractical and unrealistic, it does not mean the study is rubbish, just the way people choose to interpret it.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm also concerned that a vet can stand up and say they are not treating issues caused by riders weight. The majority of lameness is caused by ridden wear and tear - obviously turn out injuries/ accidents occur, but please don't tell me these vets aren't making a pretty penny out of arthritic changes in feet, hock issues, kissing spines, etc etc.
of course rider balance and empathy play a big part, but if you assume two riders of an equal standard, but surely noone is saying that supporting 13 stone on your back for an hour a day is not going to cause any more wear and tear than carrying 10?
I also think a little common sens is called for, especially as we're not reading the original paper but a bit of media sensationalism. I doubt it is aimed at all the 8 stone people on chunky native ponies. That said, I see lots of pics, incM and M showing pages in H&H where I think "ooh, too much, surely....."

its up to the individual what they feel is justified, in the same way as some people feel its ok to take a horse out thats not fit enough to cope with the workload, and then bemoan their bad luck when it breaks down.
My personal view is based on looking carefully at horses, which everyone tells me are strong, but actually aren't, because people dont bother to condition them!
I've just got back a horse I SJ some years ago - she was a lovely, bonny little horse. She would be around 550kg. So I think by the 20% guide, which is what was mentioned as harmful I think, she would be carrying a rider of 17stone. Well, she's had someone of 16stone (which is now agreed by all parties was completely ridiculous) and please do not try and tell me its done her no harm, the little horse is going to take a lot of work to get her back to anything like her former self.

I put someone of 11 stone on a chunky 15.2 the other day - he definatly struggled. I had a 10 stone person on a round 15h, and allowed them to canter -without doubt caused issues. I'm getting a lot lot tougher on my weight limits. I wonder if a lot of people say their horse copes fine because they never see it ridden by someone lighter (& of equivilant ability) for long term, and see an improved performance?
 
No, I didn't expect that either, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it...... Chunky as in I'd x tb type, rather than cob, so I suppose it depends on your idea of chunky. And the girl wasn't a particularly great rider, but we also weren't doing anything particularly taxing. Dont get me wrong, he didnt struggle to move, but he certainly was finding it more difficult to be engaged and up through his middle. Perhaps I'm just over protective of my horses, but he wasn't as "keen" as would be normal for him.....
 
thatsmygirl said:
A do not see a chunky 15.2 would stuggle with 11stone at all
Click to expand...

But actually, thatsmygirl, that's a daft comment isn't it, because a chunky 15.2 that has had no work to get it strong would struggle, wouldn't it? A bit like all these cobs people keep telling me are strong. Um no, they are on their forehand because they have no other means of supporting themselves, let alone trying to stay in balance with a rider on top......
 
Jesstickle said:
You don't count, you already understand how to read a paper. Durr. ;)

I can't remember the last time I painted my toenails. I really am that lazy! :eek:
Click to expand...

Lol I haven't seen durrrr for ages!! :D:D

I think the last time I did mine was actually in September! I really ought to though... There's a rather unsightly bruise that is growing out and it's at that stage where it just looks like I've got a really really dirty toenail :D but I'm too embarrassed to go to a salon!

This is when romance really is tested in a marriage... When you have to ask your OH to cut your toenails :D:D

Can't believe shysmum has ACTUALLY got us talking about our toenails!!! That deserves an applause.
 
JFTD said:
The study, in so far as we know about it from that abstract, is rubbish since it cites no reference or reasoning for this magical ten percent (if lighter is the key surely 5% is better than 10% - and thus 10% can't be optimum, can it!?) ...


eta - is lighter always better anyway? If you need your seat for dressage and general equitational control, I bet there's a point where the rider:mount weight ratio is too high to offer any meaningful communication.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the authors consider 10% the perfect balance between meaningful communication and weight burden. Without access to the full paper we'll never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top