Discussing the 20% weight rule

[EstherYoung]

Sorry to resurect this thread but I stumbled over this link which I thought was interesting:
http://www.allcreaturesanimalhealth.com/refId,42029/refDownload.pml

The conclusion is that an overweight horse will cause itself more damage even with a 'normal' weight rider than a healthy weight horse will do carrying a heavier rider.

 

[tallyho!]

Well yes overweight horses will do more harm than a rider as it has to carry that excess everywhere it goes whereas a rider is a temporary load.

Do people consider 30% ok just for an hours amble in the village?

What about 30% for SJ or eventing?

Personally, 20% is max for me and I generally like the 15% rule and try to get as near to that as possible, but I like riding fine horses.

 

[CobsGalore]

Going by the 20% rule, my horse could carry 15 stone - but there's absolutely no way I would put 15 stone on him. Just because he can, it doesn't mean he should.

So I definitely don't agree with the 30% rule, which would allow 24 stone on him!!!

I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous!

Who actually thinks it's ok to put 24 stone on a small cob??

 

[Wagtail]

It seems to me that SOME overweight riders are forever trying to get other people to say it's all right. It isn't all right but at the end of the day it is between you and your conscience.

 

[MrsNorris]

When I first started riding 35 odd years ago, we were told that the rider should be no more than 1/7 (about 14% I think) of the horses weight, with tack etc as extra, and I have used that guideline ever since.
IMO 20% should be the absolute limit if the horse is expected to work hard, and 30% just sounds ludicrous.

 

[Star_Chaser]

I have to be honest I cringe when I see an overweight person on a horse. I'm over weight myself for my height I'm now 11 stone used to be around the 8 stone mark so never considered my weight an option when looking at a horse. In all honesty I am not sure what i should be considering given my weight now. Height wise I'm 5ft 6 so pretty average.

I know that a lot of heavier people enjoy riding and I wouldn't like to spoil their fun but for me aiming for riding again has been an incentive to lose weight.

 

[CobsGalore]

It seems to me that SOME overweight riders are forever trying to get other people to say it's all right. It isn't all right but at the end of the day it is between you and your conscience.

Totally agree.

 

[flump]

No offence to big Ben but I think these posts are here to almost justify being over weight for your horse. I have done the same but now I realise that it's no good for my horse so I'm losing weight! 30 percent of a horses weight is alot to carry it's not on!

 

[Wagtail]

No offence to big Ben but I think these posts are here to almost justify being over weight for your horse. I have done the same but now I realise that it's no good for my horse so I'm losing weight! 30 percent of a horses weight is alot to carry it's not on!

Yes, she does keep bringing the subject up and trying to challenge the 20% rule.

Being overweight is usually only a problem to those who are overweight themselves, and there is no reason it should be a problem to others or cause people to make unkind remarks. However, when it becomes a problem for an animal, that has no voice, then it does wind me up. I think it's pure selfishness. There are plenty of overweight people on this forum who are trying their best to lose the weight. Some have even decided that at their current weight, they are too big to ride. That I admire. It is taking responsibility. What gets me are the (minority) of people who are too big for their horses, who refuse to deny themselves anything, and that includes riding horses.

 

[webble]

I have to be honest I cringe when I see an overweight person on a horse. I'm over weight myself for my height I'm now 11 stone used to be around the 8 stone mark so never considered my weight an option when looking at a horse. In all honesty I am not sure what i should be considering given my weight now. Height wise I'm 5ft 6 so pretty average.

I know that a lot of heavier people enjoy riding and I wouldn't like to spoil their fun but for me aiming for riding again has been an incentive to lose weight.

Thats not really overweight. I am 5ft 5 and just under 11st and am about right. You wouldnt want a tiny pony but you arent enormous

 

[Puppy]

Well yes overweight horses will do more harm than a rider as it has to carry that excess everywhere it goes whereas a rider is a temporary load.

Do people consider 30% ok just for an hours amble in the village?

What about 30% for SJ or eventing?

Personally, 20% is max for me and I generally like the 15% rule and try to get as near to that as possible, but I like riding fine horses.

I don't think 30% is ever ok I think it's completely unfair on the horse. I'm not even comfortable with 20%. I agree with Tallyho that 15% is far more realistic.

 

[alainax]

30% would mean my boy could carry around 33 stone never gonna happen lol!

It just seems waay to much for any horse to carry. 20% seems like the very upward limit imo, and even then not ideal, aiming for lower being far wiser

 

[Big Ben]

Yes, she does keep bringing the subject up and trying to challenge the 20% rule.

And you constantly seem to want to have a go, well do so.

for anyone else, read the OP again, this is NOT I repeat NOT about fat riders on horses, the question was about how you decide on questions LIKE the weight carrying rule. Yes it is a subject that interests me, yes I research it, and this is why I framed the question as I did, but obviously my use of the English language is a as faulty as all my other skills.

To try YET AGAIN, and God only knows why I bother, because now the thread has been resurrected, it will just become a fat bashing thread, and have posts from people who "haven't bothered to read all the replies"

--------------------------------------------------------------------​

OK, the QUESTION IS, about what you believe and why you believe it.

Many people state the research done on 20%, and that is oft quoted, but then there are people here who are stating that they don't believe that and 15% should be the rule, so what do they base that on?

The research on the Trevis ride says 30% and that is long distance riding, but 100% of people here would dismiss this.

Like so many things with horses, there do appear to be geographical differences, and ideas change over time.

When I was growing up I never fed oats, they were heating, made ponies and horses fizzy, now oats are the only grain I feed.

Ideas change with situations, if you had told me 10 years ago that I would have a bunch of barefoot horses who only wear a rug on very rare occasions in winters like we have here, I would have laughed.

Living in the UK, I thought that step up trailers would be horrible, now I would not choose a ramped trailer over my step ups.

Living in the UK I believed that this

was top end of weight carrying, now I'm told different.

Geographical differences, some things I don't get

"horses will go lame if they have to stand on concrete floors" I still believe that hard floors outweigh the dirt floors you see so often here.

"Riding on the road is evil" well if you know how that one works.

So some things I change my mind on, some things I don't.

Weight carrying ability, well the only answer to that one is

IT ALL DEPENDS

 

[Arizahn]

Got one for you maths types...what would rider and tack/gear weight of 16st be 15% of? And how much bone ought it have, respectively?

So that I can plan my horse shopping accordingly! I like to hack out in a western saddle and the style I am fond of weighs in at 2 1/2st, plus my own 12st, plus other tack, blanket, water bottles, etc. I think 16st is a safe estimate, probably would be closer to 15st, but want to play it safe.

 

[flump]

30percent is just too much! Wether that be 30percent on a shire or 30 percent on a mini!!!

I think like a poster earlier stated that the 30percent rule has only come about because they don't want to discourage heavy riders when the heavy riders are lining there pockets!!!!

 

[rhino]

What makes a rule a rule? I've never seen any figures from the above being used as a rule, and I have never seen a particularly well carried out scientific study into weight and horses. Surely it's just different opinions, not rules

 

[Cortez]

Well, I base my ideas of weight carrying ability on experience (and quite a lot of that is outside the UK/Ireland sphere that would predominate on here). I have done a lot of my riding/training in the US, where itty bitty Quarter Horses are ridden by great big cowboys with no real adverse effects - they routinely carry way more poundage than would be considered acceptable in the UK. BUT, a 15hh Quarter Horse is not the same as a 15hh TB or pony cross, which would be more the type of typical horse over this end of the world. A heavy-ish cob is also capable of carrying more than a lighthorse type. Also consider the type of riding: jumping and galloping is always going to be harder on a horses joints and frame than hacking/trail riding - hence why jockeys are rather, erm "little"? But a great big heavy person (define? Over 12.5 stone/175lbs) on a little, slight horse (under 15hh/7 - 8 ins bone) IS NOT RIGHT.

 

[Arizahn]

Hmm...my maths suggests a horse weighing in at 677.21 kg, so guessing a very solid cob or possibly an actual draught type...

 

[Wagtail]

Big ben, I am in no way fat bashing. But you time and time and again start these threads and get the same answer, that 20% is enough for any horse and that most prefer to see more like 15%. It is obvious why the people who run the organisation that stipulate 30% of the horse's weight is acceptable say that. The reason is financial. There are a larger number of plus sized riders across the pond and they don't wish to alienate them. It is not said through any horse welfare concern.

I sometimes wonder if you start these threads just to wind us up on here. A bit of trolling perhaps? After all, you started a thread recently about a rescue horse that you have acquired 'for myself to ride'. You are around 23 stone, right? You said he was 16hh then when others questioned his size and condition, you stated he was actually 15 hh and had 7 1/2 inches of bone! How could you ever imagine it woud be fair of you to ride him? It just illustrates to me how poles apart we are in our attitude towards our horses. You have been welcomed on here by many, which would include myself, if you did not keep banging on about riding completely unsuitable horses for your weight. Wake up. Get a reality check. You need a weight carrier, not a spindly 15 hh quarter horse with 7 1/2 inches of bone. Then I will start to take you seriously and be supportive of you.

 

[Big Ben]

Got one for you maths types...what would rider and tack/gear weight of 16st be 15% of? And how much bone ought it have, respectively?

So that I can plan my horse shopping accordingly! I like to hack out in a western saddle and the style I am fond of weighs in at 2 1/2st, plus my own 12st, plus other tack, blanket, water bottles, etc. I think 16st is a safe estimate, probably would be closer to 15st, but want to play it safe.

LOL, you need a scientist as well as a mathematician, because a Western saddle distributes the weight better than an English saddle, so ignoring the riders weight for a moment, there should be a balancing number put in that reduces the weight of that Western Saddle for your calculation purposes.

 

[Gloi]

There is a study on this page about the effect of rider weight on endurance horse performance on a 100 mile endurance ride which is interesting.
http://www.allcreaturesanimalhealth.com/site/view/212994_EquineNutritionArticles.pml

 

[Littlelegs]

Like you say big Ben, ideas change with situations. And I can't help feeling that now you are in the situation you are too big to ride, you are trying to change everyone else's idea of what is right to justify it. I also agree 100% with everything Wagtail has said.

 

[tallyho!]

This is the only study I can actually find specifically designed to assess weight carrying ability:

It concludes 29%

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...1.x/asset/asj1041.pdf?v=1&t=hd4tj7lr&4494a2c5

If anyone else can find more, please add.

 

[Arizahn]

Big Ben: "LOL, you need a scientist as well as a mathematician, because a Western saddle distributes the weight better than an English saddle, so ignoring the riders weight for a moment, there should be a balancing number put in that reduces the weight of that Western Saddle for your calculation purposes."


I know that but I would prefer to err on the side of caution and simply go with the base total weight of rider, saddle, gear, etc. I am thinking of something along the lines of a Shire or a Jutland, prefer the height of the Jutland but possibly quite hard to find one!

 

[Big Ben]

Big ben, I am in no way fat bashing. But you time and time and again start these threads and get the same answer, that 20% is enough for any horse and that most prefer to see more like 15%. It is obvious why the people who run the organisation that stipulate 30% of the horse's weight is acceptable say that. The reason is financial. There are a larger number of plus sized riders across the pond and they don't wish to alienate them. It is not said through any horse welfare concern.

I sometimes wonder if you start these threads just to wind us up on here. A bit of trolling perhaps? After all, you started a thread recently about a rescue horse that you have acquired 'for myself to ride'. You are around 23 stone, right? You said he was 16hh then when others questioned his size and condition, you stated he was actually 15 hh and had 7 1/2 inches of bone! How could you ever imagine it woud be fair of you to ride him? It just illustrates to me how poles apart we are in our attitude towards our horses. You have been welcomed on here by many, which would include myself, if you did not keep banging on about riding completely unsuitable horses for your weight. Wake up. Get a reality check. You need a weight carrier, not a spindly 15 hh quarter horse with 7 1/2 inches of bone. Then I will start to take you seriously and be supportive of you.

Not a troll, not at all, trolls are liars, and I am open, hey you want to see what I'm up to you know where to find me, and as to fat threads, well

I see you have your own going set up not to ask any question but just to bash fat riders, maybe YOU are the troll eh?

Maybe I do need to wake up, but so do you, because if people don't ask questions and explore things how do we ever change ideas.

THAT is the point of this thread, how do we change ideas and for a lot of people you don't it seems. For me, I just don't know, I'm still making up my own mind about a lot of things.

As to Cody, yes he was bought sight unseen for me, yes I was shocked when I saw him, yes he is a project that will be for sale again because he isn't what I need right now, or indeed in the future.

Yes I'm considering strongly selling my mares as well, but AGAIN, this thread was about something else.

It is obvious why the people who run the organisation that stipulate 30% of the horse's weight is acceptable say that. The reason is financial. There are a larger number of plus sized riders across the pond and they don't wish to alienate them. It is not said through any horse welfare concern

This maybe be obvious to you, but I think that is a terrible thing to say about a national federation, shows disrespect that you would believe this. I shake my head at your views, same as you do at the questions I ask.

 

[JFTDWS]

Alright BB, I take your point - the research is poor quality and neither the 20% nor 30% rules should be regarded as gospel. God knows how that association decided on 30% - why not email and ask them for their reasoning? I would certainly be interested.

Personally, my opinion is that it depends on the horse - fitness, age, conformation, the rider's skill/balance/conformation and the task they will perform together. I've probably had 20% ish on my cob before for a "pony" ride round the school for 10 minutes. I've had more than that on my highland for a walk round (combined weight of dafthoss and I), but that's an entirely different kette of fish to jumping, endurance, schooling, regular work etc.

I can't honestly conceive how I could put 30% of my highland's weight on him and expect him to work - I'm sure he could carry 150kg, but I couldn't expect him to perform like that outside of a dire emergency...

 

[tallyho!]

Also, I do not think Big Ben is trying to justify anything and has started a legitimate debate.

It's not just "fat"people that can be overweight for a horse. Just think how much the queens cavalry have to carry with all the regalia.

Police horses carry more than 20%.

There's so much to the load debate, it's not about being fat and she is asking a genuine question. I have decided that 20% is my max but I cannot tell you on what I base that apart from what I have grown up with and what I think is right. I haven't yet found a paper that says 20% should be the limit.

It may not change my mind but the fact ifrom the paper i just linked to s there for all to see.

 

[Gloi]

What does anyone think of the results of those tests that were done on the endurance horses that I posted?

tallyho, I'd like to read your link but it wan't allow me to access the page.

 

[tallyho!]

What does anyone think of the results of those tests that were done on the endurance horses that I posted?

tallyho, I'd like to read your link but it wan't allow me to access the page.

Isn't it the tevis cup one Mentioned earlier?

It doesn't stipulate a weight, it rightly suggests there are multiple factors to take into account such as body condition, bone, fitness and age. Which is what everyone should be doing. There is no magic percentage as there is no magic size of horse.

There may be 100kg cowboys out there riding quarter horses but how long for?

Sorry about the link, on an iPad so that my be why... Will try and repost...

 

[Gloi]

Isn't it the tevis cup one Mentioned earlier?

Yes, I hadn't noticed it had been mentioned before.