Discussing the 20% weight rule

Beausmate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apparently my highland is only capable of carrying 12 stone (wouldn't be an issue for me anyway - yet :p ) if you believe the bizarre logic on this forum. 20% of his weight would be about 100kg, also way more than he routinely carries. However, he would be capable of carrying more, I'm certain. I wouldn't like to see him eventing with 100 or 150kg, but carrying a stag down off the hill, if he were fit enough, sure. That's one of the reasons why I think concepts like the 20% (or 15%) rule are facile and broadly useless. Your conformation comments cover some of the other reasons I object to blanket and arbitary rules.
 
The 20% rule would mean my 15.2 tb should be up to carting in excess of 15 stone around. :eek:

Load of old tosh. With a living animal you have far too many variables to make accurate comparisons. You can have same breed, sex, height, weight, age and fitness level, but you won't have the same weight carrying capacity, likewise they won't all be able to gallop at the same speed. Too many differences for a blanket rule. The lighter, the better methinks.

And besides, just because it can, doesn't mean it should.
 
CobsGalore said:
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!? :confused:
Click to expand...

Caol Ila said:
One of my many issues, is not explaining things properly, I was hoping that this

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.
Click to expand...

Would lead to a discussion on how we come to the information and the conclusions that we do, and how we change our opinions

Caol Ila said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, I'm not totally sure where the difference comes from, that's what I find so interesting, not test riding horses to destruction, not wishing to overload horses with fat people, but how come that the UK, who BTW has such fantastic little weight carrying native ponies has the deeply ingrained idea about the weight a horse can carry.

It seems UK says 20%, but someone else pointed out, in the Overseas forum I believe, that the part of Italy she lives in is closer to 30%, Iceland, it has long been held that Icelandic ponies can carry up to 18 stone, Peruvian Pasos, small horses carrying full size men, and then the US and Canada

It is difficult when you move form one country to another, in many areas you have to change what you have always known and done, some things are not important, some things more so. I just find the debate and the different belief systems interesting.
Click to expand...
 
JFTD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I so agree with this - blanket 20% could be too much or sometimes less than the horse can carry depending on the factors.

BTW I'm around 13-14% of my horses weight and for his age and issues I wouldn't want anymore on him. Younger and fitter he probably could carry more.
 
Bluntly speaking, UK horse owners favour a moderate weight percentage because we do not want to cripple our horses with back pain/arthritis.

We have this idea that if we provide our horses with appropriate care, their working lives will be greatly extended.
 
Billie1007 said:
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*
Click to expand...

Yes she is, Billie. She is riding big ben and has herself admitted that without tack she is 23% of his weight. She has plans to ride her finer mares after losing only 50lbs.

I don't actually have problems with her riding, I have problems with the TYPES of horses she rides.
 
Last edited:
I actually didn't grow up with the magical
20% figure, & tbh it wasn't something any yards I worked at used either. In all honesty, the horses weight wasn't really considered either. It was just basic common sense. And 20% the absolute max that some horses can carry, some carry less, but none carry more. If in the states they have a different view, then I would imagine its largely based on the fact they have more overweight people. But with all due respect op, the USA is too huge for you to possibly comment on what is the norm. The practices in your state or those around it perhaps, but different states can be worlds apart.
 
JFTD said:
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.
Click to expand...

But to conduct such a study woud mean purposely subjecting horses to detrimental levels of weight, which would be morally questionable IMO.

I think the reason why opinions differ over the Atlantic, is because people on average weigh much more over there, and have done for a long time. Familiarity and all that. When you are exposed to things over and over, you become less sensitive to it.
 
melbiswas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I agree with you. Individual case scenarios apply and you cannot expect your average leisure horse to cope with 30% doing the equivalent of the tevis cup.

Just like I wouldn't be able to weightlift tomorrow in the Olympics. I might be able to if I trained hard for a year, but I don't want to so there :D
 
eahotson said:
Bluntley speaking many UK owners cripple their horses with badly fitting saddlesi nstead and boy do they cripple.Ask my farrier!
Click to expand...

Have to agree and always wondered why lots of folks don't have their saddles checked every 6 months.

Sadly, having lived in the US, I believe that their saddle fitting services are probably where ours were in the 70's. Think your farrier would have a fit if he heard you can qualify to shoe after a 4 week course.

So Big Ben, my issue is also type of horse. The PMU program is providing plenty of quality Percheron crosses, and I've seen articles in Dressage Today, regarding draught horses and how to school them.

As proved by George Morris's infamous comments,exceeding the 20% rule, is certainly not acceptable in the US for those who ride "English".
 
I doubt much has been "proved" by George Morris, other than that he might be kind of a knob, who is notorious for slagging off anyone slightly bigger than a wee rake thin model And on the welfare front, there were allegations some years ago of him "rapping" horses, but that's by the by. In his column in Practical Horseman, he'd get snarky about people who send him pictures of them riding a cross-country course, for example, and they'd be in the colourful eventing garb, horse unbraided, and he'd always sneak a comment in there about how pants eventing turn-out is. I know he much loved by the hunter/jumper world, but I've always found him to be, as I said, a bit of a knob.

Anyway, I think Americans are more used to seeing heavier people and also more accustomed to seeing them on lighter horses. Quarter horses, paints, thoroughbreds, and apps are a dime a dozen. Ten to fifteen years ago, draft crosses and warmbloods were far more uncommon, although that's changed a lot and these days they seem to be the mounts of choice for adult ammy riders. There's no equivalent of a Gypsy cob or other sturdy British natives, although some lines of Morgans and Tennessee Walkers are pretty sturdy.
 
Too many of you are fixated on this 20% figure. It is basically done for research to provide indicative reasons why competition horses in some forms of competition were prone to lameness and injury. It isn't a rule that you must not break or anything, however, horses carry over the figure were seen to have increased heart rates and scintigraphy revealed increased internal wear on joints. Heart rates took longer to revert to normal and secondary effects were excessive drinking and sweating for those carrying 25% and 30% despite finishing training and races. 4 of the 20 carrying those weights after 10 years showed in soundness problems. Research isn't on the typical family horse and I'm sure more could carry the full 20% than couldn't but a lot of the horses in our society are overweight with poor conformation and fitness and would very much struggle. A lot of riders also over estimate their balance! I am 18% including tack of my boy. He can do 20 and has done if my instructor sits on him but I am sure he would start showing up flaws in confo if routinely carrying large weights. I think common sense should prevail. Take a look at the animal and ask how well is it put together? Is it long in the back; upright or long in the pastern? Has it much bone? Is it fit? How old is it? How does it move? Then decide what it can carry.
 
Wagtail, where did I propose suh a study? I didn't. My point isn't "we must research the maximum a horse can carry", my point is that we should stop trotting out unfounded and irrational rules when people ask 'am I too heavy?'.

I think tying the cultural norm in the states back to levels of obesity is pretty offensive actually. The logic appears to read 'you are American, you are more used to seeing fat people on horses, therefore you are unable to see that this is abusive or make an accurate moral judgement based on your horse's welfare'. Facile and wrong, I would imagine.
 
JFTD said:
Wagtail, where did I propose suh a study? I didn't. My point isn't "we must research the maximum a horse can carry", my point is that we should stop trotting out unfounded and irrational rules when people ask 'am I too heavy?'.

I think tying the cultural norm in the states back to levels of obesity is pretty offensive actually. The logic appears to read 'you are American, you are more used to seeing fat people on horses, therefore you are unable to see that this is abusive or make an accurate moral judgement based on your horse's welfare'. Facile and wrong, I would imagine.
Click to expand...

I would not have done offhand, but I was struck by the responses Big Ben got on the Yank forum, which were all along the lines of "I don't see why you shouldn't be riding those horses (even the wee mares). They can carry you, no trouble" Every one of them. No one said, as they have here, that she shouldn't ride the mares. Hence me saying, there's a sociology paper here somewhere. I don't know if it ties into people's perceptions of obesity and norms or not, but I did find it to be an interesting dichotomy.
 
Actually jftd, whilst I wouldn't go so far as to believe its as per your last paragraph, I do think to an extent rising obesity, & what a horse can carry are linked. Even if you go back just 15yrs in the uk, it wasn't common to consider if you were too heavy for a horse, because the majority of the time people were too tall to ride a horse regularly, before they got too heavy. The rising weight issues we have as a population now though mean there are far more people who would be well within an individual horses height range, but too heavy for it to be feasible. And I bet if it were possible to go back 30yrs, & for arguments sake find out what % of 5'6 women were too heavy for a 15.2 tb, it would be a lot lower than a poll done today. (5'6 & 15.2 tb random stats, but you get the idea). And it stands to reason that as the USA is ahead of us in the weight epidemic, weight carrying issues will be more relevant there, same as they are more relevant in the UK now than years ago. Of course very sweeping statement saying USA, when obesity levels vary hugely between states.
 
Littlelegs said:
Actually jftd, whilst I wouldn't go so far as to believe its as per your last paragraph, I do think to an extent rising obesity, & what a horse can carry are linked. Even if you go back just 15yrs in the uk, it wasn't common to consider if you were too heavy for a horse, because the majority of the time people were too tall to ride a horse regularly, before they got too heavy. The rising weight issues we have as a population now though mean there are far more people who would be well within an individual horses height range, but too heavy for it to be feasible. And I bet if it were possible to go back 30yrs, & for arguments sake find out what % of 5'6 women were too heavy for a 15.2 tb, it would be a lot lower than a poll done today. (5'6 & 15.2 tb random stats, but you get the idea). And it stands to reason that as the USA is ahead of us in the weight epidemic, weight carrying issues will be more relevant there, same as they are more relevant in the UK now than years ago. Of course very sweeping statement saying USA, when obesity levels vary hugely between states.
Click to expand...

Indeed. In my hometown, everyone is scarily fit and most of the population ski, hike, climb, cycle, ride, run, swim, raft, and more, and any combination thereof. Go to a different city, it's a whole 'nother world.
 
CI I agree it is interesting sociologically - I just don't think it is as patronising as "more of the population is obese therefore you are more used to seeing it".

In some demographics, that may be one factor. But it's also surely to do with other factors - heavy but fit cowboys riding little qhs is unlikely to be related to obesity, more so to the nature of their horses as working animals, not pleasure animals. This is why the weight debate varies in other countries too, not primarily linked to levels of obesity.

Littlelegs, I didn't say that it wasn't a factor in any case, I said that it is not the sole, under pining reason in what I think is probably a complex issue influenced by many factors. It is certainly true that more people outgrow horses weight wise before height wise than they did thirty years ago, but that is the same as saying that levels of obesity are increasing - which we all accept. The point is, obesity is only one f the reasons a jockey may be too large for a horse. Complex issue.
 
I see your point jftd, I just wanted to make it clear that's why I think people are referencing the difference in weight between usa population & uk, rather than it being a case of 'americans are all fat, therefore used to seeing overloaded horses'. And I would say in most cases, its more relevant to people being a couple of stones overweight & therefore too big for certain horses, rather than the more rare cases of being very obese & too heavy for most, or all, horses.
 
shadowboy said:
Too many of you are fixated on this 20% figure. It is basically done for research to provide indicative reasons why competition horses in some forms of competition were prone to lameness and injury. It isn't a rule that you must not break or anything, however, horses carry over the figure were seen to have increased heart rates and scintigraphy revealed increased internal wear on joints. Heart rates took longer to revert to normal and secondary effects were excessive drinking and sweating for those carrying 25% and 30% despite finishing training and races. 4 of the 20 carrying those weights after 10 years showed in soundness problems. Research isn't on the typical family horse and I'm sure more could carry the full 20% than couldn't but a lot of the horses in our society are overweight with poor conformation and fitness and would very much struggle. A lot of riders also over estimate their balance! I am 18% including tack of my boy. He can do 20 and has done if my instructor sits on him but I am sure he would start showing up flaws in confo if routinely carrying large weights. I think common sense should prevail. Take a look at the animal and ask how well is it put together? Is it long in the back; upright or long in the pastern? Has it much bone? Is it fit? How old is it? How does it move? Then decide what it can carry.
Click to expand...

Agree with all of that plus would add that work load is important too.If you hack round the block for 20 mins three times a week weight is less important than if for instance you want to go eventing.
 
JFTD said:
Wagtail, where did I propose suh a study? I didn't. My point isn't "we must research the maximum a horse can carry", my point is that we should stop trotting out unfounded and irrational rules when people ask 'am I too heavy?'.

I think tying the cultural norm in the states back to levels of obesity is pretty offensive actually. The logic appears to read 'you are American, you are more used to seeing fat people on horses, therefore you are unable to see that this is abusive or make an accurate moral judgement based on your horse's welfare'. Facile and wrong, I would imagine.
Click to expand...

Oh goodness me, you really are getting things out of proportion. All that I said is that there are historically more morbidly obese people in the states. That is a fact, not my opinion (though we are fast catching them up). Another fact is that the more you are exposed to something, the less shocking it seems. It becomes the norm. So not offensive - fact. You are so PC. :)

Reminds me of when I was running a Manpower studies department for a major supermaket. I was responsible for researching and writing most of their human resources policies, and amongst them was the equal opportunities policy. When it came to the section on race, I wanted to run it past a guy who worked for me, who was the only black person in the whole of the division. He took offence to me asking him saying, why have you picked on me? Just because I'm black! And I said 'erm...yeah.' Of course I picked on him because he was black. No good asking someone who could not possibly know whether the policy was worded in as non offensive way as possible.

Anyway, I digress. My point is, that I am dealing with facts and I am fed up with pussy footing around in case I say the wrong thing and it causes offence. It shouldn't do, I don't mean it to. It is about horse welfare.
 
Wagtail said:
Yes she is, Billie. She is riding big ben and has herself admitted that without tack she is 23% of his weight. She has plans to ride her finer mares after losing only 50lbs.

I don't actually have problems with her riding, I have problems with the TYPES of horses she rides.
Click to expand...

I am riding Ben??? Tell me when I last rode Ben please, you seem to know so much about me, you guessed my weight completely wrong in another thread, and now I'm riding Ben, interesting.

But you know I do have a lesson booked on Sunday, with Ben, so we will see how it goes, I won't shock you with the details though, because I know that you would rather not know.

New year, new trainer, new start, I'm looking forward to it.
 
Wagtail said:
Oh goodness me, you really are getting things out of proportion. All that I said is that there are historically more morbidly obese people in the states. That is a fact, not my opinion (though we are fast catching them up). Another fact is that the more you are exposed to something, the less shocking it seems. It becomes the norm. So not offensive - fact. You are so PC. :)
Click to expand...

Oh Wagtail, if only you knew me ;) It's not PC to think that making sweeping cultural generalisations based on singular reasoning is facile and I think it is offensive to suggest that a culture is so incapable of independent, self critical insight that they would be oblivious to a simple case of desensitisation.

By way of example: it's not uncommon over here to know horses kept in stables 24 hours a day, and yet many horse owners in the UK think it unacceptable. i.e. we are not desensitised to it, as we are capable of independent thought. Those who agree with stabling horses 24/7 may do so because they are desensitised to the notion or because they are lazy and don't want to groom, or because they are capable of independent judgement of their horses' needs, or any number of other reasons.

To assume that it is acceptable for horses to carry 30% of their body weight in the US is a generalisation, and to presume there is one underpining reason why opinion differs in some subsets of the population is to presume all who hold that opinion are incapable of independent thought.

Welfare is a complex issue. Perhaps there's a forum of 6'4 cowboys who ride 14hh quarter horses out there who are currently debating why so many horses over here are obese, laminitic etc and attributing it to facile reasons like it must be because we're all fluffy bunnies who never ride because we're too busy pampering our pet ponies ;)
 
JFTD said:
Welfare is a complex issue. Perhaps there's a forum of 6'4 cowboys who ride 14hh quarter horses out there who are currently debating why so many horses over here are obese, laminitic etc and attributing it to facile reasons like it must be because we're all fluffy bunnies who never ride because we're too busy pampering our pet ponies ;)
Click to expand...

*LIKE*

When I picked up Ben from the trainers last year there was a guy there picking up his 14hh 2 year old QH who had just finished her 90 days.

He looked at Ben and me and asked "Why have you got such a big horse" so I answered

"Because I'm a big girl"

his response...

"Ah English, I've always wanted to ask why you English folk want to ride such big horses the whole time?"
 
Big Ben said:
I am riding Ben??? Tell me when I last rode Ben please, you seem to know so much about me, you guessed my weight completely wrong in another thread, and now I'm riding Ben, interesting.

But you know I do have a lesson booked on Sunday, with Ben, so we will see how it goes, I won't shock you with the details though, because I know that you would rather not know.

New year, new trainer, new start, I'm looking forward to it.
Click to expand...

You have said yourself you are riding him, but that you don't do very much. Of course I don't know what to believe. I can only go by what you post on here and the other forum. For all you know, I may just keep hamsters and know nothing about horses at all. You only know what I post on a forum. So I don't understand the point you are trying to make. :confused:

ETA:

Normally before I book a lesson on a horse I get it fit enough to cope with the lesson. Are you telling me that you are not actually riding Ben, but that you have booked a lesson on him this week end?
 
Last edited:
Wagtail said:
Normally before I book a lesson on a horse I get it fit enough to cope with the lesson. Are you telling me that you are not actually riding Ben, but that you have booked a lesson on him this week end?
Click to expand...

Shockingly I booked a lesson on my unfit mare before as well, you know it only lasted 20 mins and we mainly did walk.

Why do you assume that a lesson must be a really long time:confused: Some people will use a trainer to help get their horses fit the right way even if it is only a 20 min ride or less.

For all you know this lesson is lunging work etc with a trainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top