Discussing the 20% weight rule

[Big Ben]

I know that the 20% rule is widely accepted when talking about horse weight carrying abilities, and yes I've seen the research that backs that up.

Interesting reading from the American Endurance Riders Conference, taken from their handbook, Chapter 3 selecting the endurance horse.

II. BREEDS
When it comes to breeds, it’s obvious that as a group Arabians do the best. On the other hand, individuals from any breed can excel in endurance, and not all Arabians are suitable candidates. Arabians are usually easier than other breeds to keep fit once they are in shape. In fact one is looking for a type of horse, not a breed, I.e., a sound, efficient mover with staying power. What does seem to be true is a higher percentage of Arabians are the right type than most other breeds.





III. AGE
The most preferred age of a prospect is 3-8 years. If you like to start with a horse who has never been ridden and are willing to spend the two years for basic equitation training then 3-4 is a good age, otherwise look for the 5-8 year old. A younger horse may take many years before you will have any idea whether or not he is suitable for the sport, and an older horse is fine if you are well aware of his history. (Endurance horses often perform competitively well into their late teens.) This history should include regular exercise, preferably trail riding. It will normally take two to three years to have the horse in top fitness if they have not been exercised a lot before your purchase but while you are conditioning you may enter many endurance rides on horses that are this age when you purchase them, provided you have the self-restraint to ride these early rides as conditioning rides and not races. Many a good prospect has been ruined by racing too soon Remember, if your horse obviously has shown you that he is not a good endurance horse prospect, there are many others out there that will fill the bill.

IV. SIZE
There is no ideal size for an endurance horse. Ponies can do very well, as can horses of 16 hands or so. Many good endurance horses are between 14 and 15 hands. The size of the horse should be appropriate for the size of the rider, however. No one could expect a pony to be competitive carrying a 200 pound man. Small, lightweight riders obviously have an advantage in that they have a greater range of sizes from which to choose. As a rule, the horse can carry up to 30% of his body weight, depending on his bone size, I.e., a 900 pound horse should be able to carry approximately 250 pounds on his back.

For those not familiar with AERC

About AERC

The American Endurance Ride Conference (AERC) was founded in 1972 as a national governing body for long distance riding. Over the years it has developed a set of rules and guidelines designed to provide a standardized format and strict veterinary controls. At the same time it has sought to avoid the rigidity and complexity so characteristic of many other equine disciplines.

From its beginnings in the American West, the AERC has spread roots both nationally and internationally. The AERC sanctions more than 700 rides each year throughout North America. In 1978 the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) recognized endurance riding as an international sport, and since that date the U.S. and Canada have regularly swept the team and individual medals. In 1993 Endurance became the fifth discipline under the United States Equestrian Team (U.S.E.T.).

In addition to promoting the sport of endurance riding, the AERC encourages the use, protection, and development of equestrian trails, especially those with historic significance. Many special events of four to six consecutive days take place over historic trails, such as the Pony Express Trail, the Outlaw Trail, the Chief Joseph Trail, and the Lewis and Clark Trail. The founding ride of endurance riding, the Western States Trail Ride or "Tevis," covers 100 miles of the famous Western States and Immigrant Trails over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. These rides promote awareness of the importance of trail preservation for future generations and foster an appreciation of our American heritage.

AERC Mission Statement: To promote the sport of endurance riding and to encourage and enforce the safe use of horses in demonstrating their endurance abilities in a natural setting through the development, use and preservation of trails. Further, AERC's mission is to maintain horse and ride records of event competition and completions, to record and provide awards to outstanding horses and riders, to ensure that all sanctioned events are conducted in a safe, fair and consistent manner, and to actively promote and conduct educational efforts and research projects that will foster a high level of safety and enjoyment for all horses and riders. The above is to be accomplished with the understanding that goals for the rider must be meshed with the abilities of the horse. Part of AERC's mission is to attract and reward members who act to insure the highest priority for their horses' immediate and long-term physical and emotional health and well-being.

AERC Vision Statement To be the preeminent authority and leader in developing and promoting the sport and pastime of endurance riding in the United States, Canada, and throughout the world.

This is not a thread about anyone, or to promote the larger rider, I am interested in the difference in views on this one.

From my point of view, I grew up in the UK accepting that horses shouldn't be backed until they are 3 or preferably 4, and that the 20% rule was probably gospel. Also that horses needed shoes.

Now on the other side of the Atlantic, I know that horses don't ALWAYS need shoes, I struggle with 2 year old horses being broken and ridden away, and with the acceptance of the larger rider.

Obviously AERC wants to have fit and healthy horses, it wouldn't do them any good to advise the 30% rule if horses were breaking down, and I'm sure that there are enough fitter, thinner people doing endurance that they didn't need to opt for the 30% rule arbitrarily.

So, any chance of a decent discussion on this one?

 

[Nicnac]

I don't have an issue with suitable horses being backed & lightly ridden at 3 (there is a thread on here today about a highland being lightly ridden at 3) and it states that 2 years of basic equitation is required before proper endurance riding is started so seems sensible to me.

Again the 20-30% rule is down to common sense. As (many) previous threads have stated, it depends on the conformation and stature of the horse and the rider's skill and musculature.

For example, my husband weighs 100kgs. However he is 6'4" and very sporty with little fat but is an occasional leisure rider. I allow him to ride my 5 yo ISH on a hack at the 20% rule, but would not allow him to ride my TB. Although the 30% rule would apply, I wouldn't feel comfortable and neither would the horse!

A person who is a competent rider would be able to ride a lighter horse at the 30% rule than somebody who is a 'sack of spuds' with no muscle tone nor experience in riding.

 

[unbalanced]

I ride my 14hh Welsh D and my friend's 13.2hh Gypsy Cob. I weigh currently 9st7 and am 5'6. As both ponies are kept slim, I am probably pushing it with the 20% rule on either of them (mine is 360kg and the cob is 390kg on the weigh tape, they have not been weighed). I also ride mine in a Western saddle.
My friend rides hers quite happily and she is heavier than me - I would guess nearly 11st at perhaps 5'4. However the pony is quite happy, forward going and neither the vet or instructor have any problem with it. The pony has decent bone even though she is not covered in fat, which seems to account for the light weightape reading.
I am careful with who I put on mine as she is 23 and arthritic - certainly no one heavier than me jumps her or rides her for longer than 15-20 minutes, or at all in the western saddle. If you look in my album you will see we are not out of proportion to each other though.

 

[LCobby]

For an accurate weight, I find weigh tapes underestimate the actual weight on a weighing stall, especailly for cob types- our 630 kg horse by tapes was 720Kilos on a vet weighing stall. However, I would not put 144 kilos on hm!

By weigh carried though, this should include the rider fully dresssed for riding, and the saddle, any tiems carried- eg water bottles, not judt the riders nathroom scales reading.

 

[Mongoose11]

Oh sweet jeepers BB, are we going THERE again. This may turn epic

 

[Littlelegs]

The 20% theory is actually the maximum they found a horse could carry without doing longterm damage. Which to be perfectly honest isn't my concept of an ideal weight. How did they come up with the 30% theory? How many horses did they study, what tests etc were carried out to ascertain 30% is ok?

 

[Littlelegs]

And, the 20% 'rule' applies to horses that are fit, muscular, & healthy adults. Not 20% of an overweight horse, or youngster, or unfit horse, oldie, or from a random guess with a weigh tape using what you weigh in pj's to calculate if you're ok.

 

[Kallibear]

'can' and ' should be expected to' are not the same thing! Yes sure, most horses 'can' carry 30% of their body weight without falling over. Do they find it easy and does it do them no harm? No, they don't and a 24st rider (that's 30% of the average 500kg horse) is going to damage their back pretty quickly.

Riding is a sport and requires a level of fitness and athletic ability and yes, a weight limit. It involve a living thinking feeling animal that has no say in the matter. If you cannot control your weight and are unfit and/or fat and weight more than the horse can EASILY manage (not just 'cope with'), do not inflict it on the poor horse. Find another sport where your weight doesn't matter.

 

[Big Ben]

Oh sweet jeepers BB, are we going THERE again. This may turn epic

Not going THERE, going long distance

I just find it interesting to see these guys talking about a 30% rule, it would seem entirely random, but I genuinely don't know.

I don't know the research etc, I do know about the small scale study done by Ohio on the 7 horses, hardly a large scale study.

Yes it would count everything, the horses full load, but interestingly not the bridle when looking at minimum weight carried Then there is the whole debate if the extra weight of a western saddle is worth the extra weight bearing surface.

 

[Big Ben]

'can' and ' should be expected to' are not the same thing! Yes sure, most horses 'can' carry 30% of their body weight without falling over. Do they find it easy and does it do them no harm? No, they don't and a 24st rider (that's 30% of the average 500kg horse) is going to damage their back pretty quickly.

Riding is a sport and requires a level of fitness and athletic ability and yes, a weight limit. It involve a living thinking feeling animal that has no say in the matter. If you cannot control your weight and are unfit and/or fat and weight more than the horse can EASILY manage (not just 'cope with'), do not inflict it on the poor horse. Find another sport where your weight doesn't matter.

But this is a recommendation by the endurance riders, I have never done a long ride, but I am thinking that a person has to have a reasonable level of fitness to complete a ride. This is not discussion on weight per se, but ratios.

 

[Littlelegs]

Without knowing how they decided 30% was acceptable, its impossible to debate it properly. It could be a figure randomly pulled out of thin air by one person, or a comprehensive study done on hundreds of horses over their entire lifespan. Although I'd be inclined to think the former is most likely.

 

[Kallibear]

They say 'can carry up to' but still doesn't mean they should. That's over 20st rider they believe a 450kg Arab (your average 14.2 roughly) 'can' carry for 100's of kilometers. That's unacceptable to just bout everyone's standard.

 

[Big Ben]

Without knowing how they decided 30% was acceptable, its impossible to debate it properly. It could be a figure randomly pulled out of thin air by one person, or a comprehensive study done on hundreds of horses over their entire lifespan. Although I'd be inclined to think the former is most likely.

Why do you say that, because it doesn't fit with the 20% that is usually spoken of? You really think that and association that large, would pull a figure out of thin air or a figure used by one person.

I was genuinely surprised by someone pointing out this part of the preamble to the Ohio study, I had never picked it up before.

Eight horses (one mare and seven geldings), all of light-horse breeding and weighing between 391 and 625 kilograms,
were used in the study. The horses ranged from 6 to 18 years old. Following four months of pasture rest, the
horses were brought into individual box stalls and also had daily turnout. They were fed hay and grain and had free
access to water and trace-mineralized salt.

So that study was done on unfit horses, not fit ones.

 

[Littlelegs]

I don't fully agree with the 20% rule, so I'm unlikely to agree with the 30% rule. When & if there is comprehensive research which concludes without a doubt 20%, or 30% is an acceptable weight for a horse to carry, I'll believe it. Until such time, as horses can't say 'no' we shouldn't be asking them to carry weights we aren't 100% certain are acceptable, regardless of how conveniently it might fit with our personal desires.

 

[Alyth]

Another thing to factor in is the type and amount of work being asked for......so perhaps it should be looked at as a guide rather than a rule.....

 

[EstherYoung]

The age thing - under AERC rules a horse can't compete in their main classes until it is at least 5 (and a proper 5 at that), but it can do the shorter distances at 4 (but a proper 4, not a 1st of Jan jobbet). The established old fashioned wisdom is that it takes at least 4 years to 'make' and endurance horse, and indeed the AERC rules warn against 'racing' too young.

They do have a heavyweight division, but to be honest most well muscled blokes with a full set of tack would fall into it. They're not encouraging obese people to get on a skinny horse and ride Tevis. Indeed, if you read further down their rules, they say things like:

Many beginners ride a traditional Western saddle. It is heavy, and any extra weight is a penalty for a horse going 25 to 50 miles or more.

There's a good article here:
http://www.horse-sense.org/archives/20040620074653.php

 

[La Fiaba]

Interesting article, it says exactly what I say to my friends every beddy week when they can't understand why I wont put a 100kg man on my 350kg haffy! Only better and more politely worded of course

Over here (Italy) there seems to be a concenus of 30 or even 35%. As I try to point out it all depends on the individuals involved. Matching horses to riders is as much an art as a science. I tend to follow 20% absolute maximum as this is the scientific advice I have recieved and tbh I couldn't imagine putting more than that on most of my horses. If a new study (with considerably more than 8 horses!) shows horses are not damaged by 30% I will take the info on board and make an informed decision, but until then I feel 30% for MY horses is too much considering the work they are doing.

 

[shadowboy]

My parents left the uk to the Middle East in 2003 to do this research on Arabs and also found 20% to be the maximum the 30% would not be obvious in the first instance but wouldn't take long to show up. I would never ever do it!

 

[Megibo]

30% sounds far too much... 15% to 20% is the ideal, its probably just an excuse by overweight people to ride because the horse 'can' carry them..
I am currently dieting because the 20% rule of my 13.3 is 11 stone and I am 1 stone over that. As she is 14 this year I'd rather be at her 15%, which is 8 and a half stone. I should add that I have not ridden her regularly for a while due to this and if I do its a walk hack. I work her inhand instead.
Currently I'm fine on my 14.3 as her 20% is 12 and a bit stone.

 

[Littlelegs]

Just not doing damage isn't good enough for me. I can carry a third of my bodyweight without damaging myself, either long or short term. But its not pleasant to do so for long, & I'm relieved to put it down. As kallibear said, 'can' doesn't mean 'should'. Using the 30% rule, when my 14.2 was in her prime she could have carried the 24stone combined weight of my boyfriend & me, which sounds beyond cruel. Horses are just to easy to take advantage of, & imo we shouldn't. Most well cared for horses could survive with half their current intake, no foot care, no vet, no worming, dental care, saddles that pinch, living permanently in a too small stall, dirty bedding, being beaten etc. But just because they 'can' I'm sure few of us would agree its ok, & what they should carry is no different imo.

 

[scots]

Don't believe in the 20% rule, which would mean my Girl can carry 18.5 stone - she is 16hh TB - there's no way!
riders should also take into account tack - which can weigh 5kg on its own - and larger riders should choose large stocky well muscley well developed horses

 

[Cortez]

It is perfectly feasable that the association cited did indeed just pull that figure out of the air; they offer no evidence to support it. There have been several studies that all point to the 20% as a MAXIMUM before horses start to break down and or register distress. I wouldn't put that much weight on my horses, because I don't want them to break down or cause them distress.

 

[1stclassalan]

Bear in mind - there's what they could carry - and what you'd like to see them carry!

This idea follows through to other fields too - I know that the Forth Bridge would carry SEVEN times it's design load - but you wouldn't see me any where near it from about four onwards!

I also know that there was once a 747 that took off from Heathrow carrying ( a record at that time ) 70 pax and 33 tons of frieght ( and I'm pretty sure it was old tons rather than metric tonnes ).

The crew refused to take off twice as the on-board computer didn't like the load distribution ( pilot's disgression ) so the ground crew fiddled with it all until they had green lights on the flight deck - everyone assured everyone else that all was good. However -

You should have seen the crowd that gathered on the apron to watch the crash that never happened!

Back to horses - not much chance of my 12 stone overloading this one eh? -


http://www.flickr.com/photos/1stclassalan/8423708256/

 

[Wagtail]

I think it is all down to the fact that there are a lot more overweight people in the states. Suggesting a 20% rule would cut out a lot of the people who participate in the sport. Therefore it is to the organisations disadvantage if they were to suggest that so many people would be too heavy to participate. 30% has been plucked out of the air and is not backed up by any studies whatsoever. Personally, I don't like to see more than 15% on most horses and ponies. Some breeds such as haflingers, some cobs, highlands etc, can probably cope fine with 20%.

 

[alainax]

As a heavier rider I must say that for me the 20% rule* feels just about ok.

More of a being able to tell by looking at a horse if it can carry me comfortably, and what cant. Then later checking its weight and working the 20% and being well under it.

Ive been offered rides on horses in the past, refused as I thought id be too heavy, then checked later to find that was close 20% or slightly over.

Imo... 30% is too much.


Although in saying that, I have my doubts about the 20% rule working on all breeds. For example a really tall yet tiny boned tb type, even though he may weigh in, id still not be happy about sitting on him if i was close to the 20%.

Has to have the bone build and structure to carry larger weight imo.

* the rule being all of the stipulations of horse at correct weight, fit, not a baby etc

 

[Big Ben]

Over here (Italy) there seems to be a concenus of 30 or even 35%. As I try to point out it all depends on the individuals involved. Matching horses to riders is as much an art as a science. I tend to follow 20% absolute maximum as this is the scientific advice I have recieved and tbh I couldn't imagine putting more than that on most of my horses. If a new study (with considerably more than 8 horses!) shows horses are not damaged by 30% I will take the info on board and make an informed decision, but until then I feel 30% for MY horses is too much considering the work they are doing.

This is what I find interesting, why is 30% a consensus in other places?

The age thing - under AERC rules a horse can't compete in their main classes until it is at least 5 (and a proper 5 at that), but it can do the shorter distances at 4 (but a proper 4, not a 1st of Jan jobbet). The established old fashioned wisdom is that it takes at least 4 years to 'make' and endurance horse, and indeed the AERC rules warn against 'racing' too young.

They do have a heavyweight division, but to be honest most well muscled blokes with a full set of tack would fall into it. They're not encouraging obese people to get on a skinny horse and ride Tevis. Indeed, if you read further down their rules, they say things like:


There's a good article here:
http://www.horse-sense.org/archives/20040620074653.php

I agree completely, this is not a discussion about fat as about ratio, and weight is weight be it 5' 0" of round person, or 6' 4" of ripply muscled cowboy, (pauses a minute on that image)

Tack also needs to be factored in, and the fit and weight spread of the saddle.

I don't fully agree with the 20% rule, so I'm unlikely to agree with the 30% rule. When & if there is comprehensive research which concludes without a doubt 20%, or 30% is an acceptable weight for a horse to carry, I'll believe it. Until such time, as horses can't say 'no' we shouldn't be asking them to carry weights we aren't 100% certain are acceptable, regardless of how conveniently it might fit with our personal desires.

So what does convince a person, others state that there is, many argue, scientific evidence to back the 20% rule, but not enough to convince you?

Not saying that you are wrong, it is for each individual to decide what is right for the and their horse, but most seem to be convinced of the 20% rule

It is perfectly feasable that the association cited did indeed just pull that figure out of the air; they offer no evidence to support it. There have been several studies that all point to the 20% as a MAXIMUM before horses start to break down and or register distress. I wouldn't put that much weight on my horses, because I don't want them to break down or cause them distress.

Again the most quoted one is the small Ohio study, 7 horses, and coming off of 4 months of pasture rest, before being asked to carry up to 30% of their weight.


---------------------------------------------------------
What interests me, and yes I am like a dog with a bone on some things, isn't actually if the 20% or 30% rule is correct, but how we come to believe what we believe. It is like the 8 glasses of water a day, that we all generally accept, but there have been few if any scientific studies done to actually prove it.

Back to the 30% rule, more interesting reading here

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...bdXj6f2W4ZTjTEQSsPIVZ0A&bvm=bv.41867550,d.aWM

hope that link works, a study of 374 riders in the Trevis Cup, and concluding that up to 30% horses weight has no detrimental impact on the horses performance.

Of course when it comes to it, the fundamental answer will always be "It all depends" Rider and horse build, fitness, ability, etc etc, there are to many variables ever to come up with a perfect mathematical answer.

 

[Cortez]

It is like the 8 glasses of water a day, that we all generally accept, but there have been few if any scientific studies done to actually prove it.

That study was funded by a bottled water manufacturer, actually (surprise!) and was later refuted by several others (not funded by people with an ulterior motive). So you've all been overworking your kidneys and bladders for nowt, I'm afraid.

The 20%, or 30%, is a guideline, not a rule, and I would say after many years experience in riding schools, trekking centres, etc., that 20% as a maximum is about right. I used to work in America (at a trekking-type place) and have seen first hand the effects of overweight riders on horses backs, joints - and psyche's.

 

[Spring Feather]

So what does convince a person, others state that there is, many argue, scientific evidence to back the 20% rule, but not enough to convince you?

Not saying that you are wrong, it is for each individual to decide what is right for the and their horse, but most seem to be convinced of the 20% rule

Not me either I'm afraid. I work on 12% - 15% absolute maximum for any riders on my horses. I've never been taken in by the 20% guideline and I sure as heck don't agree with any 30%. I do think they've just plucked this figure out of the sky tbh.

 

[Littlelegs]

I'm not disagreeing particularly with the evidence of the 20% rule, in that no damage is done. But I disagree with using the level at which damage is done as a guideline. As per my earlier examples, there's lots of things we can do that don't do physical damage within certain limits, but it doesn't mean I'd ask a horse to endure them. In any situation, whether horse or human, there is a huge gap between the limits of what we can physically endure, & what we deem acceptable to endure.

 

[ShadowFlame]

20% on a fit, mature horse, in most circumstances, yes. Going on my cob's ideal weight, he should be able to carry 14.5st. I'd be reluctant to put that much on him right now, or on a regular basis to be honest, but once fittened up I'm well aware he'd carry it without batting an eyelid.