Discussing the 20% weight rule

[Gloi]

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.

I hadn't seen this, sorry. However the conclusion was that it was the underweight horses that were having trouble completing the ride, there were no overweight horses competing. The heavier horses were having more lameness problems, these are the heavier ones, not the fatter ones. Rider weight did not alter the horses chances of completing the ride. I suppose that if the horses were having problems with the weight of the riders it will have been picked up long before the horses reached this level of competition so these horses would not be in the survey.

 

[Wagtail]

BB, you keep harping on back to the 'fat bashing'. Why don't you see it is not about how much someone weighs but whether they are too heavy for their horse? Goodness me, I received a ban for starting a thread 'attacking' a member on here for riding her mini. She is 7 1/2 stone. But that is just as bad in my eyes as someone who is morbidly obese riding a 16 hh thoroughbred. Why can't you understand that?

 

[Big Ben]

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.

Interesting that now two studies looking at a total of nearly 500 horses are finding the same thing, that horses can compete at well over the 20% rule.

What do I think.....OK I am making assumptions here

The Trevis Cup is a bloody hard ride, and I would ASSUME that the riders have to be fit just to complete, I would also assume that horses have to be even fitter. We are talking about fit horses and riders and as such, that and the size of the study to me gives it credence.

The much quoted Ohio study with 7 horses dragged in to work from 4 months in the pasture and asked to carry loads up to 30% is somewhat limited in contrast.

 

[webble]

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.

I would agree with this I'm afraid that pic you posted you do look too big for the pony

 

[Wagtail]

Interesting that now two studies looking at a total of nearly 500 horses are finding the same thing, that horses can compete at well over the 20% rule.

Of course they CAN compete but the study says"The rider's weight as a proportion of the horse's body weight
(RW/BW) for animals disqualified for metabolic failure was higher than those that completed the
race."

 

[JFTDWS]

Of course they CAN compete but the study says"The rider's weight as a proportion of the horse's body weight
(RW/BW) for animals disqualified for metabolic failure was higher than those that completed the
race."

In the 1998 study, not in the larger 1995 Tevis study. Neither are exactly conclusive evidence in either direction.

 

[Gloi]

Of course they CAN compete but the study says"The rider's weight as a proportion of the horse's body weight
(RW/BW) for animals disqualified for metabolic failure was higher than those that completed the race."

Looking at those results it also seems that in these cases where the animal disqualified for metabolic failure part of the reason the rider's body weight percentage was higher was because the horse was too thin (body condition score low) and it is this thinness which leaves the horse short of energy stores for the race.

 

[CobsGalore]

To be honest, I'm not sure why we need to look at studies and evidence to come to a conclusion. Surely its just common sense?! 20+ stone shouldn't be on a 15 hand horse, end of. In fact, I don't think 20+ stone should be on any horse, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Wagtail]

Looking at those results it also seems that in these cases where the animal disqualified for metabolic failure part of the reason the rider's body weight percentage was higher was because the horse was too thin (body condition score low) and it is this thinness which leaves the horse short of energy stores for the race.

What proportion?

 

[Gloi]

What proportion?

I can't get at all the original data.
However 34 out of 42 of the horses which failed on metabolic issues had a body condition score of 3.5 or below (out of 10) on this scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henneke_horse_body_condition_scoring_system

Of the 101 horses with a body condition of 4 and above only 8 failed on metabolic issues.

 

[devonlass]

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.

Horses in the UK do not always need shoes,horses shouldn't ideally be backed at younger than 3 yrs,and the 20% rule probably should *not* be taken as gospel.

I don't think it matters what side of the Atlantic you are on,there are basic rules of common sense and consideration for the welfare of your animal.

I have to be honest having read a few of your posts regarding this subject you seem like you are trying more and more to absolve yourself of any responsibility regarding your weight and riding.

It sounds like you are looking for justification rather than an interesting debate TBH.

Apologies if have got you all wrong but that really is how you're coming across.

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.

Why would you want to explore whether or not your horse can carry even more weight Shouldn't the changes be with the aim to make life easier for them rather than more of a struggle??

Although I am not terribly overweight now I will never be slim or a lightweight rider,and in the past i have been heavier and had to have horses that were what I needed rather than what I wanted.

At no point though did it occur to me to make the facts fit my circumstances rather than face the truth or do something about it.

I have no idea if horses can carry 30% of their bodyweight,I know what my opinion is on whether they should be asked to but I guess there are still people that struggle with the could or should question.

I am thinking also that there is a heck of a lot of difference between a fully fit endurance horse (possibly a discipline that requires the highest level of fitness??),and the average leisure horse.

I'm not sure if the nature of the work would be relevant as well?? Endurance I *think* is often more straight line and steady riding,setting a good pace and requiring stamina above all else??
Very different to schooling,dressage,jumping etc I should think?? Not saying any or either are easy or more difficult BTW just thinking that rider weight and saddle type/fit may impact more on the horse more for some activities than others.

 

[Mongoose11]

I think some are being harsh towards BB, her exploration of the topic is purely hypothetical. She isn't riding her horses at her current weight and is trying to lose weight so that she can ride.

I don't understand what more you want?


*thispostwasbroughttoyoubyfattiesunite.com*

 

[tallyho!]

Here's some supporting 20%...

http://www.horsesciencenews.com/horseback-riding/how-much-weight-can-a-horse-carry.php

http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&A=3276&S=0&SourceID=69

Still trying to find how much the household cavalry have to carry... Nothing found yet...

 

[devonlass]

I think some are being harsh towards BB, her exploration of the topic is purely hypothetical. She isn't riding her horses at her current weight and is trying to lose weight so that she can ride.

I certainly never meant to be harsh or unkind and if i was I sincerely apologise.I have struggled with weight for much of my adult life,am certainly not dismissing the struggle or effort involved with changing ones habits.

However I do find it strange that someone committed to changing their weight to benefit their horse spends so much time arguing the case for them being able to carry more

Does it matter if hypothetically a certain type of horse can carry more weight than originally thought?? Why would you want to validate that POV unless you wanted to convince yourself or others it was ok to ask it of them??

Sorry not trying to pick fault just honestly think the tone and content of BB's posts imply we should be exploring adding burden to our horses rather than trying to lessen it.

 

[melbiswas]

The effects of overloading joints can take many years to show

I think if you weigh 20% the weight of your horse common sense says you are going to give your horse ( and yourself ) problems in the long term.

 

[Mongoose11]

She can't really be thinking it's a good thing though can she, otherwise she wouldn't have stopped riding or started to lose weight

I have stopped riding, and started to lose weight but I often wonder if my mare would in fact be ok. I think she would, not prolonged riding or jumping or school work but the occasional hack. I choose not to at the moment as does Bb. I look into the numbers, I crunch them AGAIN according to the rules and then I continue not to ride.

The wondering is just wondering and that makes it an interesting topic rather than a welfare case. I don't think Bb has ever argued a case has she? She has asked questions though....

 

[melbiswas]

Regarding relevant studies; there are just too many variables for a good scientific study.

I doubt these horses were of the same breed, age, training, tack, feed, ability of riders, style of shoeing........ Etc that would need to be in place before comparing the effects of weight. Then long- term follow up would need to be done. The list goes on.

 

[alainax]

I have a theory pro over weight riders... and riding bare back.


My squishy bum must be soooo much more comfy on the horse back!

 

[Copperpot]

It must so much depend on the horse. I am 8% of my big horses weight and there is no way he would carry 30%. I wouldn't even like to see 20% on him. The other I'm 12% who is much smaller and again I wouldn't feel comfortable putting 20% on him.

 

[melbiswas]

Agreed Alainax, my broad backside spreads the load !

(Fat police, I am 10% the weight of my mare. Sadly not evenly distributed)

 

[Littlelegs]

I just really don't understand why you'd want to investigate how much your horse can carry without detrimental effect. Imo its like investigating how thin your horse can get without causing damage, or how badly a saddle can fit before causing damage, or how long you can leave feet to overgrow before having issues, or how fast I could work an unfit horse before causing problems etc. I wouldn't want to push the boundaries of any of those, so why would you want to find the physical limit for weight carrying?

 

[alainax]

I just really don't understand why you'd want to investigate how much your horse can carry without detrimental effect. Imo its like investigating how thin your horse can get without causing damage, or how badly a saddle can fit before causing damage, or how long you can leave feet to overgrow before having issues, or how fast I could work an unfit horse before causing problems etc. I wouldn't want to push the boundaries of any of those, so why would you want to find the physical limit for weight carrying?

I do think its helpful little legs, to know what statistics are saying, as a rough guide.

For example we have a huge number of riders on this forum who call themselves fat, or question if they are too heavy to ride... when they are tiny little things!

Ive seen people post on here being concered as to being too big for a horse, and it has shocked me as to how slim they are - has opened my eyes to the world of percieved body image and how eating disorders could develop.

For one of these girls to look at the 20% idea, and think - wow im only 10%... maybe im ok.

Similarly, those riders who have went - crap im 21%, im quitting riding and losing some weight ( there is a few on this thread). What a motivation!

I dont think numbers are ever a bad thing, as long as always taken with a pinch of salt and a dash of common sense

 

[Big Ben]

I dont think numbers are ever a bad thing, as long as always taken with a pinch of salt and a dash of common sense

Exactly, so often raw data tells us not much.

I truly do give up though, as I so obviously lack the communication skills to get people to see the question that I was asking, not what they think this thread is about.

 

[Caol Ila]

I'm also a member of the American forum Big Ben posts on and I've read her threads there as well. Completely different responses. Diametric opposites, really.

I keep thinking there's a sociology paper around here somewhere.

 

[YorksG]

I have to say I agree with littlelegs, why would you look to the maximum your horse would cope with? I wouldn't leave my horses with their shoes on, until the shoes either fell off or broke! I wouldn't see how long my horse could go without forage, before she developed ulcers (as to know that, I would have to leave her until she did). I do not think that destruction testing live animals is acceptable.

 

[Littlelegs]

I get it from that pov, but I think most people agree closer to 15% is the ideal, with some breeds (in healthy condition etc) being able to manage closer to 20%. I just don't understand why people aren't happy to stick at what we know is acceptable, rather than try & find out what is possible. And I strongly believe discomfort is experienced (in any situation) long before the level at damage is done, so I don't agree assessing physical damage is the way to find an acceptable limit.

 

[CobsGalore]

I truly do give up though, as I so obviously lack the communication skills to get people to see the question that I was asking, not what they think this thread is about.

You asked for people to discuss rider weight and everyone has given their thoughts and opinions - I really don't understand what you wanted everyone to say!?

 

[JFTDWS]

I don't think BB is advocating destruction testing for the highest limit, just questioning the perceived wisdom round here. Perceptions are clearly different across the Atlantic (which is interesting, sociologically!) and in other parts of the world and none of us have a monopoly on the truth. The 20% rule is often trotted out, but there really isn't a lot of evidence for it, and I think that's what BB is questioning.

I don't think the limits should be higher, but I think that estimations used to advise people should be based on more than an arbitrary figure without decent supporting evidence.

 

[melbiswas]

I'm not saying this should be studied. I was making the point that studies quoted in this thread ( suggesting weights of up to 30% in the American one and 29% in one I couldn't see) may not stand up to further scientific scrutiny.
I don't think riders should necessarily judge on this thinking research has proven their horse can take their weight.

 

[Beausmate]

I can't see it has any merit really. For me, 20% is around 2 stone, I could carry it, I wouldn't want to lug it around for too long, but I could probably work my way up to carrying it for longer. So have have these hypothetical horses been built up to carry whatever percentage? JFTD might not wish to burden her lovely Highland with 150kg and neither would I, but I bet his ancestors carried that in the form of stags. They wouldn't have been dragged out of their nice little paddock or cosy stable once a week and made to carry it around for an hour though, they'd be working hard and very, very fit and only carrying at a walk.

A long-backed horse, young, fit and well muscled would not be able to carry as much as a young, fit, well muscled, short-backed horse even if the long-backed horse was heavier. So the horse needs to be conditioned for it's job. Bit like the drum horses I guess, those drums are heavy and I doubt the rider and the rest of the gear are featherweights! They don't have to gallop or jump or travel miles though. But they are built up to the work.

Seems it's not so much a question of percentage, as proportion, build and conditioning.

Think I'll stick to the backside rule-If your backside appears to be equal to or greater than that of your horse, you're too damn fat for it!