Another weight/height question

[sbloom]

Trying saddles at tack shops isn't necessarily going to help much, IMO. They all tend to carry similar brands which may or may not help you. Instead using a trusted fitter who REALLY understands rider fit, and how to load the rider to not put weight too far back on the horse's back, no matter how long the saddle/ribcage is critical and not all are based out of tack shops (maybe very few are!). As you're not super experienced it's good if a saddle fitter can help you to stabilise yourself from your pelvis objectively rather than only relying on your feedback as you don't have much to compare it to.

Too many fitters see to just take simple landmarks on the horse's back and fit the saddle to those rather than understanding this more complex loading formula. It's a gamechanger.

I would suggest narrower and taller may help you, especially if you think you may have reduced hip mobility range, or otherwise narrow hips. On a round horse not only are your thighs going to be pushed out more, especially if the saddle fits well as it will then also be wide (traditional treed saddles, on average) but your knees may still be above the widest point and that widest point will be WIIDE. There are treeless options that can really help with this if you do end up with a wider horse.

A narrower horse will allow you to sit narrower, and have a wider choice of saddles. Your knees won't be sitting 4' from each other and your foot may end up just as high above the belly, not more so, than on a wider, shorter horse.

And don't be too hard on yourself, there are SO many reasons we struggle to lose weight. This is a post from a page that should resonate, but may help you, a lot, I hope.

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreRebelfit/posts/pfbid02CUrHbNuV98AUyKipantQK6PaAtykJDGU1DuaJ5ygMHjob5khLZ9gf3sF2cfD61RKl

 

[smolmaus]

I’m riding a 14.2 chunky cob. He’s a bit too chunky for my short legs but taller horses over 15 hh make me nervous. Like I said, I’m old enough to be bad at bouncing.

I think the nervousness is a more easily solved problem than the fairly complicated equation of 14.2 + long enough back for saddle + short enough back for strength + pony weight + your weight honestly. The likelihood of needing to be able to bounce is much more related to temperament than size!

If 15h is a hard limit then it's a hard limit, that's your choice to make, but it is going to make the pony search harder for you. A few months of riding something taller at the RS and being a little bit brave might make the rest of your life easier!

But well done for doing the research and thinking about all this before you go horse shopping.

Would like to reinforce this too. You are being conscientious and thoughtful and that needs to be commended.

 

[Peglo]

This has been proven to only adapt thermogenesis by 5-15% unless the deficit is extreme and sustained for months eg: during literal starvation, so it would be unlikely that it would prevent a calorie deficit from working. Also a small glass of wine only halts it for the 1-2 hours it takes to metabolise the alcohol content, so whilst not helpful, it would also not halt the affect of a deficit entirely.

But doesn’t thermogenesis only make up a proportion of energy expenditure so your % doesn’t include the other compounds of metabolism. From all the papers I’ve read anything less than 1200 calories over a prolonged time can trigger metabolic adaptation.

The thing with alcohol is while it’s being metabolised your body isn’t just not burning fat but storing it. So that 2 hours, seven days a week would make losing weight harder. A day or 2 a week not so much.

 

[HelenMac]

Trying saddles at tack shops isn't necessarily going to help much, IMO. They all tend to carry similar brands which may or may not help you. Instead using a trusted fitter who REALLY understands rider fit, and how to load the rider to not put weight too far back on the horse's back, no matter how long the saddle/ribcage is critical and not all are based out of tack shops (maybe very few are!). As you're not super experienced it's good if a saddle fitter can help you to stabilise yourself from your pelvis objectively rather than only relying on your feedback as you don't have much to compare it to.

Too many fitters see to just take simple landmarks on the horse's back and fit the saddle to those rather than understanding this more complex loading formula. It's a gamechanger.

I would suggest narrower and taller may help you, especially if you think you may have reduced hip mobility range, or otherwise narrow hips. On a round horse not only are your thighs going to be pushed out more, especially if the saddle fits well as it will then also be wide (traditional treed saddles, on average) but your knees may still be above the widest point and that widest point will be WIIDE. There are treeless options that can really help with this if you do end up with a wider horse.

A narrower horse will allow you to sit narrower, and have a wider choice of saddles. Your knees won't be sitting 4' from each other and your foot may end up just as high above the belly, not more so, than on a wider, shorter horse.

And don't be too hard on yourself, there are SO many reasons we struggle to lose weight. This is a post from a page that should resonate, but may help you, a lot, I hope.

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreRebelfit/posts/pfbid02CUrHbNuV98AUyKipantQK6PaAtykJDGU1DuaJ5ygMHjob5khLZ9gf3sF2cfD61RKl

Thank you. Sounds like you’re a saddle fitter!

 

[IrishMilo]

And yet I fitted in a 16.5" with no issues at much heavier than that. Its saddle dependent but also shape of your body. Probably the same weight as the OP, I cant get my head round kgs and it was a few years back. But I was a size 16.

Not aimed at you as I have no idea what your particular set up looked like, but for me, there's a difference between being able to 'fit' in a saddle, and actually sitting in it the way it's designed. I think 'we've' forgotten that we're actually supposed to be sitting in the seat of the saddle, not on the pommel or the cantle, which is what you see so much of. It's no wonder so many horses are sore in the lumbar region...

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

But doesn’t thermogenesis only make up a proportion of energy expenditure so your % doesn’t include the other compounds of metabolism. From all the papers I’ve read anything less than 1200 calories over a prolonged time can trigger metabolic adaptation.

The thing with alcohol is while it’s being metabolised your body isn’t just not burning fat but storing it. So that 2 hours, seven days a week would make losing weight harder. A day or 2 a week not so much.

The thermogenesis is only one part of it but I meant it, and it can be used, as an umbrella term for any metabolic adaptation - the level of adaptation have shown to be only be 5-15% of total BMR unless during period of extreme starvation, so in the OPs current situation this would not be significant enough to prevent weight loss altogether if the other areas detailed were being undertaken as described.

 

[HelenMac]

But doesn’t thermogenesis only make up a proportion of energy expenditure so your % doesn’t include the other compounds of metabolism. From all the papers I’ve read anything less than 1200 calories over a prolonged time can trigger metabolic adaptation.

The thing with alcohol is while it’s being metabolised your body isn’t just not burning fat but storing it. So that 2 hours, seven days a week would make losing weight harder. A day or 2 a week not so much.

Please don’t think I’m chugging pints of wine every night! It’s actually 160ml most nights but no more. A medium glass in a pub is 175ml

 

[ihatework]

To summarise my thoughts …

Yes I think you could find a 14.2hh - 15hh that would happily carry your weight. But given your height, I think it would be very difficult to find one that would combine the weight carrying ability with the conformation to support carrying a saddle for your body shape.

I’d be more inclined to look for a well conformed, strong 15.2hh MW type.

 

[MidChristmasCrisis]

Are you a balanced rider? Secure seat? I’d look for a 15hh native/native cross with bone, put the pony on diy and do all the jobs and keep in calorie deficit and you ll see weight come off. Our winter routine has started and I’ve lost 5 lbs without trying lol.

 

[Peglo]

The thermogenesis is only one part of it but I meant it, and it can be used, as an umbrella term for any metabolic adaptation - the level of adaptation have shown to be only be 5-15% of total BMR unless during period of extreme starvation, so in the OPs current situation this would not be significant enough to prevent weight loss altogether if the other areas detailed were being undertaken as described.

Oh right. I’ve not seen the study you’ve mentioned. Everything I’ve read it has stated it could be anywhere from 15-23%.
But I suppose the point is regardless of the percentage, if you’ve lowered your calories and you’ve stopped losing weight then obviously it isn’t working for you.

@HelenMac sorry I wasn’t insinuating you were having any amount of alcohol, just trying to explain the effects of it on the body.

 

[ester]

To summarise my thoughts …

Yes I think you could find a 14.2hh - 15hh that would happily carry your weight. But given your height, I think it would be very difficult to find one that would combine the weight carrying ability with the conformation to support carrying a saddle for your body shape.

I’d be more inclined to look for a well conformed, strong 15.2hh MW type.

I also think it can be miserable if you are constantly borderline/worrying about it as a result. It can be motivating but not all the time.

I love a pony but F was bought in my skinny early 20s, I wouldn’t actually buy my share for the same reason if I were shopping (I sort of fell into sharing him as was riding something bigger on the same yard initially)

 

[NeverSurrender]

For what it's worth, my 14.1 highland was on the weigh bridge this weekend and was 580kg, with a body condition score of 3-3.5, and is also long enough in the back to take a 17/17.5" saddle - so they do exist.

He is wide so maybe not the best for stuff hips, but I'm 5'5, chunky, and short in the leg, he's been the ideal 'step down' horse I was after

 

[sbloom]

Thank you. Sounds like you’re a saddle fitter!

There's me thinking my photo gives it away . 16 years so far of cruel and unusual punishment

Not aimed at you as I have no idea what your particular set up looked like, but for me, there's a difference between being able to 'fit' in a saddle, and actually sitting in it the way it's designed. I think 'we've' forgotten that we're actually supposed to be sitting in the seat of the saddle, not on the pommel or the cantle, which is what you see so much of. It's no wonder so many horses are sore in the lumbar region...

Agreed, broadly, but generally the only reason for someone sitting TOO far forwards is that the saddle is too low in front. Generally, as you acknowledge, there are too many people sitting too far back on the horse's back, usually on the back of the saddle, but not always. And if there's incompatibility between seat shape (and saddle construction and flap bulk) and the rider's pelvis and hips then you can be pushed back and you then waste a ton of energy simply fighting the saddle.

Many seat shapes are designed to sit the rider further back, then we need room for massive blocks in front, and there's no way we're able to sit anywhere near where the horse is best placed to carry us, which is at the base of the wither (also the narrowest point of the ribcage so much better for us too!) nearest the true ribs.

 

[I'm Dun]

Not aimed at you as I have no idea what your particular set up looked like, but for me, there's a difference between being able to 'fit' in a saddle, and actually sitting in it the way it's designed. I think 'we've' forgotten that we're actually supposed to be sitting in the seat of the saddle, not on the pommel or the cantle, which is what you see so much of. It's no wonder so many horses are sore in the lumbar region...

Absolutely. I knew I was heavy and was paranoid about it. I genuinely fitted in the saddle properly, not got my arse in and took up all the room. Im another who carries my weight in enormous boobs and a fat belly but slim legs and bum, and then short limbs, and its much easier to fit in smaller saddle. I used to find 17.5" saddles swamped me. I did have to pick and choose the 16.5 carefully though as there were lots that wouldnt have fit or suited.

 

[I'm Dun]

For what it's worth, my 14.1 highland was on the weigh bridge this weekend and was 580kg, with a body condition score of 3-3.5, and is also long enough in the back to take a 17/17.5" saddle - so they do exist.

He is wide so maybe not the best for stuff hips, but I'm 5'5, chunky, and short in the leg, he's been the ideal 'step down' horse I was after

I dont like super wide cobs, so bought a young highland for my next horse for all the reasons youve given. I sold up in the end, but had I kept him he would have been everything I wanted and more.

 

[HelenMac]

To summarise my thoughts …

Yes I think you could find a 14.2hh - 15hh that would happily carry your weight. But given your height, I think it would be very difficult to find one that would combine the weight carrying ability with the conformation to support carrying a saddle for your body shape.

I’d be more inclined to look for a well conformed, strong 15.2hh MW type.

Right. Ok. Thank you very much. Taller horse potentially better for me then.

 

[HelenMac]

There's me thinking my photo gives it away . 16 years so far of cruel and unusual punishment



Agreed, broadly, but generally the only reason for someone sitting TOO far forwards is that the saddle is too low in front. Generally, as you acknowledge, there are too many people sitting too far back on the horse's back, usually on the back of the saddle, but not always. And if there's incompatibility between seat shape (and saddle construction and flap bulk) and the rider's pelvis and hips then you can be pushed back and you then waste a ton of energy simply fighting the saddle.

Many seat shapes are designed to sit the rider further back, then we need room for massive blocks in front, and there's no way we're able to sit anywhere near where the horse is best placed to carry us, which is at the base of the wither (also the narrowest point of the ribcage so much better for us too!) nearest the true ribs.

LOL I never even looked at your pic

 

[rara007]

My 14hh cob would take you happily. Hes a proper cob but middleweight not a complete unit. He’s fit and forwards going (so easy to keep fit). He’s in a 17 inch show saddle or 16.5 GP. My 16.1 warmblood is in a 16.5 dressage saddle but could take 17.5. I’m a bit lighter than you at the moment and 2 inches taller, but even heavier than you I fitted these better than the big saddles. I have a small bum!

 

[cariad]

I'm not getting involved with your personal weight issues, because I just SO sympathise with you. I am the same and 5 years of working from home in front of a laptop hasn't helped. I am retiring next week at an advanced age and I am fooling myself that it will all be different. Yes, well....

Anyway, I am 5 ft spot on and my legs are so short it's a wonder they reach the ground. When I was riding regularly many years ago and a lot lighter, I had 4 horses, a 15.3 Hanoverian x TB; a 16.1 part bred Arab; a 16.1 Irish TB and a 17 hand Selle Francais x off the track TB. My height was not a problem with any of them, though I wouldn't have got on the 17 hh from the ground! They had 17 inch saddles. The part-bred Arab was an advanced medium dressage horse, retiring from being an intermediate eventer looking for a quieter home, but I learned so much from him, even flying changes, piaffe and passage. His saddle was a 17 inch Ideal Jessica dressage and was lovely to ride in. His temperament was to die for and was the key really. He never put a hoof wrong in the 15 years I had him, ever.

Time goes by and I got a young coloured cob, who was at best 14 hh. He had a lovely temperament as well. He was broken for me and i rode him away. That height was fine too, BUT-what I didn't like was having no neck in front of me as you have with taller horses. I always felt like I was about to slide down his neck! He is now on loan as a riding school pony as he needed a job/exercise as he is such a good doer and I didn't have the time for that.

But my point is, don't completely rule out bigger/taller horse on the grounds of your height, or indeed weight, especially if you do lose some. Irish Draughts and Cleveland Bays or crosses of the same are weight carriers, as are Clydesdale types or Shires/crosses, that sort of thing. I know that they are like gold dust and need gold to buy them, but you can get big horses that you get on and immediately feel totally safe, or 14 handers where all you want to is get off again! I have deliberately not gone into your personal preferences, your budget, time scales etc as the point I wanted to make the point that whatever horse you go for (as long as you are not too heavy for it) it is temperament that is key for me and if you can get that, you'll feel safe on pretty much any height of pony/horse, no matter what your own height is.

 

[HelenMac]

I'm not getting involved with your personal weight issues, because I just SO sympathise with you. I am the same and 5 years of working from home in front of a laptop hasn't helped. I am retiring next week at an advanced age and I am fooling myself that it will all be different. Yes, well....

Anyway, I am 5 ft spot on and my legs are so short it's a wonder they reach the ground. When I was riding regularly many years ago and a lot lighter, I had 4 horses, a 15.3 Hanoverian x TB; a 16.1 part bred Arab; a 16.1 Irish TB and a 17 hand Selle Francais x off the track TB. My height was not a problem with any of them, though I wouldn't have got on the 17 hh from the ground! They had 17 inch saddles. The part-bred Arab was an advanced medium dressage horse, retiring from being an intermediate eventer looking for a quieter home, but I learned so much from him, even flying changes, piaffe and passage. His saddle was a 17 inch Ideal Jessica dressage and was lovely to ride in. His temperament was to die for and was the key really. He never put a hoof wrong in the 15 years I had him, ever.

Time goes by and I got a young coloured cob, who was at best 14 hh. He had a lovely temperament as well. He was broken for me and i rode him away. That height was fine too, BUT-what I didn't like was having no neck in front of me as you have with taller horses. I always felt like I was about to slide down his neck! He is now on loan as a riding school pony as he needed a job/exercise as he is such a good doer and I didn't have the time for that.

But my point is, don't completely rule out bigger/taller horse on the grounds of your height, or indeed weight, especially if you do lose some. Irish Draughts and Cleveland Bays or crosses of the same are weight carriers, as are Clydesdale types or Shires/crosses, that sort of thing. I know that they are like gold dust and need gold to buy them, but you can get big horses that you get on and immediately feel totally safe, or 14 handers where all you want to is get off again! I have deliberately not gone into your personal preferences, your budget, time scales etc as the point I wanted to make the point that whatever horse you go for (as long as you are not too heavy for it) it is temperament that is key for me and if you can get that, you'll feel safe on pretty much any height of pony/horse, no matter what your own height is.

Ok. Thank you.
I’ve always ridden smaller horses because of my challenged height. I remember a memorable hack on a 16hh. I wasn’t comfortable tacking him up because neither was he. He did not want me on. Within 10 minutes of leaving the yard it was going sideways and fortunately the leader of the ride offered to swap!

 

[Gloi]

It's no fun having horses you can't reach to tack up without standing on a step.

 

[Korg]

Most common weight recommendations I hear about, including studies (though not in English, so probably not worth linking here) say that you and the equipment should not pass 20% of the weight of the horse. I would assume that this expects fit horses, though overweight horses are very common. Using the 20% rule, you'd need a horse that weighs at least 385 kg, or about 400 accounting for the saddle. You can easily get a cob within that, my decently sporty Irish sportspony weighed about 400 and he was 139 cm. Which I do believe is a little less than 14.2 hands. It is also quite common for people here to have cobs and similar horses around that height and your weight is not that much.

Yes, it does matter if you're balanced or not, and able to ride the horse in balance. The saddle needs to fit both of you. Get a horse that is naturally balanced, with a good exterior, get it used to your weight successively and you both should be totally fine. You wouldn't go to a gym and start with some heavy weights, neither would your horse prefer that. Doesn't mean they can't get used to it in a healthy manner.

It is not fun to tack up and mount horses that are unnecessarily tall. When you're up there, it matters less, but you will be handling your horse a lot from the ground.

 

[I'm Dun]

Most common weight recommendations I hear about, including studies (though not in English, so probably not worth linking here) say that you and the equipment should not pass 20% of the weight of the horse. I would assume that this expects fit horses, though overweight horses are very common. Using the 20% rule, you'd need a horse that weighs at least 385 kg, or about 400 accounting for the saddle. You can easily get a cob within that, my decently sporty Irish sportspony weighed about 400 and he was 139 cm. Which I do believe is a little less than 14.2 hands. It is also quite common for people here to have cobs and similar horses around that height and your weight is not that much.

Yes, it does matter if you're balanced or not, and able to ride the horse in balance. The saddle needs to fit both of you. Get a horse that is naturally balanced, with a good exterior, get it used to your weight successively and you both should be totally fine. You wouldn't go to a gym and start with some heavy weights, neither would your horse prefer that. Doesn't mean they can't get used to it in a healthy manner.

It is not fun to tack up and mount horses that are unnecessarily tall. When you're up there, it matters less, but you will be handling your horse a lot from the ground.

139cms is closer to 13.2hh. It would be about 13.3.5hh I think

 

[cariad]

"I’ve always ridden smaller horses because of my challenged height. I remember a memorable hack on a 16 hh. I wasn’t comfortable tacking him up because neither was he. He did not want me on. Within 10 minutes of leaving the yard it was going sideways and fortunately the leader of the ride offered to swap!"

You must obviously choose/ride what you feel comfortable on and if that's smaller horses/ponies, that's fine. But with the horse you mention, it sounds as if it wasn't so much his height as such was the problem, but that you didn't feel comfortable generally, and neither did he, which can happen with a horse/pony of height. Looking at a wider range of heights gives you more choice, but I don't disagree it's your choice. But for me, such a lot of it is about feeling safe and relaxed on a horse/pony and that can happen at any height.

With handling/tacking up bigger horses, 15.3 isn't really that big and I never had any problems with the others either. But no, you didn't really want to come off a 17 hh with no helpful logs/gates etc around and that was in the days when I still COULD mount from the ground if I had to. I'd need a hoist for a Shetland these days. We did eventually take to mounting from a block all the time as it was better for the horses.

I still have an assortment at home, mostly non-ridden, but I do have 2 Fell ponies waiting to be started. Someone mentioned Dales ponies, which are lovely, but appear a bit difficult to get hold of. Fells are smaller and seem more plentiful (though good ridden ones have gone up a lot in price) and are good weight carriers-with again the proviso of "up to a limit". I hope you find something to suit.

 

[HopOnTrot]

I think current thinking is 15% is more appropriate.

 

[Korg]

British Dressage brings in rider weight guidance for horse welfare - Horse & Hound

British Dressage (BD) has introduced guidelines on maximum rider weight for 2023 as part of its code of conduct for equine welfare. It is recommended that, from January, the maximum load carried by any equid should not exceed 20% of its total body weight “based on a horse with a ‘good’ condition...

www.horseandhound.co.uk

This is what I find as formal guidelines, in the UK as well. Of course a larger horse is probably beneficial in some ways, doesn't seem like the rider weighing at most 20% of the horse's weight is generally adviced against though.

Now I would also personally prefer a slightly larger horse if I was going to jump a lot. I wouldn't want to put too much extra strain on the horse's front legs, and a rider of any weight is extra pressure.

 

[HelenMac]

I think current thinking is 15% is more appropriate.

Yes. That’s why I said 500kg minimum. Thats my weight at 15%
Oh hang on, I forgot about tack. So more like 520kg.