Done to death I know but rider weight?

there has been several thermal imaging photos of this they usually chose a horse about 15hh cobby sort. they get a novice 8 stone rider and a 16 stone experienced balanced rider then do the thermal imaging it is clear from the photos the 8 stone novice does far more damage to the horse than the 16 stone balanced rider so yes a balanced rider of what ever weight is doing less damage to a horse than an umbalanced one. I also think science supports the view that a smaller horse with good flat bone and short cannon bones is mechanically more suited to carrying weight than the long boned and round boned heavy horses so a little mechanics have to be understood to work out the best weight and size of rider. Probably mkore even than the simple % weight desirable
 
Wagtail said:
Which horse was that? Because if it was your 14hh leg on each corner cob, I would have said 14 stone including tack. Can you show me where I said 10 stone including tack? Ten stone plus tack would be my max for my little TBxWB so I have to be careful I don't put back the weight I lost.
Click to expand...

You said 10 stone. If I can be bothered later I will trawl through the thousands of posts I have made and find it. But you absolutely, definitely said 10 stone.
 
Immediately after I had my baby my saddler told me I was holding my weight differently, lower down, and it was effecting my saddle fit ( fit to me, not the horse). I asked if I was too heavy, she said no not too heavy, just that I was now riding in a different position. I worked hard to get my muscle tone back and to get everything back in the right place... then fell pregnant again :D
 
A general post and not directed at anyone on this thread:

just dont know what has happened to common sense! surely common sense would tell someone to not ride or carefully choose their mount if they are heavy? surely we dont need a percentage point between 'ok' and 'not ok' ?

Riding is a sport, I dont know how people think they shouldn't have a basic level of fitness or body weight to participate effectively, to me its the height of selfishness for someone to have the attitude that they should be able to ride just because they want to, its typical of the 'I want' society that we live in. Riding school says they wont take you because you are too heavy? that's ok just buy a cheap horse, stick it on bin end livery and do what you like and just wait for the Facebook likes and 'awwww you go girl!' comments to roll in!

There was a lady at a recent local show so large that she was stuck on her not very chunky horse like a Lego figure, effectively stood upright in the saddle because her belly and the size of the saddle didnt allow her to bend at all - until people like this do start getting turned away from events I think it looks very socially acceptable which has to be a slippery slope

Obesity has become an untouchable 'no go' area for criticism, fair enough if people are mocking obese people trying to better themselves by jogging but when the welfare of an animal is involved I do think its time to speak up

The Showing Register has bravely recently started tackling this thorny subject but has had the usual outrage from the eight stone brigade over it, talk about missing the point.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
cobgoblin said:
There is a vet in Kent who covers various horsey events...if she considers someone too heavy for their horse she will not allow them to participate.
Click to expand...

I have done both jumping and endurance on my pony and seen some seriously overweight people in the same event as me. I'm talking obese people. Heard lots of bitching but no one said anything to their face and endurance vet had no problem (the rider did not even trot the horse up themselves as unable to). But I have to wonder is a really fat person on a large horse much different to me as a large rider on a small pony? We are both going to be over the 15% or whatever it is. Whatever my opinion on it who I am to judge it tbh and esp if the vet doesn't say anything. That's why I would be genuinely interested to see a study on actual damage/injuries caused to the horse by rider weight and would gladly volunteer myself and my pony for the research as we are still going after many years.
 
Leo Walker said:
I rest my case.
Click to expand...

But you didn't give the whole story did you? You said I'd advised you ten stone for a 14.2 cob when I actually said 15 stone if he was mature and not down hill. But what you were presenting was a down hill 5 year old with a lot of maturing to do. I still wouldn't have put more than 10 stone on him at that stage in his development.
 
ester said:
but the tests mentioned above aren't going to give you the data you need to generate an accurate algorithm from the above??
Click to expand...

No it won't give all the data but I think there's already some out there: the study mentioned above "will investigate the effect of different rider-to-horse weight ratios."

https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2017/06/20/heavy-science-rider-weight/

Other info online:

http://www.horsesciencenews.com/horseback-riding/how-much-weight-can-a-horse-carry.php
Study on rider to weight ratios

https://equusmagazine.com/management/weight_carry_062608
Effect of weight and incline

I think you'd need to dig deeper for more data, but some aspects could be guessed at reasonably well and you could adjust the weightings for certain outcomes based on common sense. We could say that any horse that's not mature in a musculoskeletal sense should not carry over 10% of it's weight for more than 20 minutes perhaps.

Then you'd need to take into account short vs long term use: is this horse going to repeat the same work with the same rider for a week or a year or 5 years? It might be fine in the short term but awful in the long term. And ideally the site would output suggestions to improve the results: get your saddle fitted professionally, avoid steep hills and heavy going, and hey - lose some weight! ;)
 
windand rain said:
there has been several thermal imaging photos of this they usually chose a horse about 15hh cobby sort. they get a novice 8 stone rider and a 16 stone experienced balanced rider then do the thermal imaging it is clear from the photos the 8 stone novice does far more damage to the horse than the 16 stone balanced rider so yes a balanced rider of what ever weight is doing less damage to a horse than an umbalanced one. I also think science supports the view that a smaller horse with good flat bone and short cannon bones is mechanically more suited to carrying weight than the long boned and round boned heavy horses so a little mechanics have to be understood to work out the best weight and size of rider. Probably mkore even than the simple % weight desirable
Click to expand...

Agree with that last statement! Can you link to the thermal imaging stuff though? I am imagining that a floppy rider causes more heat stress on the back (which is visible with thermal imaging) which could be bad, but 16st is 16st and the affects on the muscles and skeleton of that long term just have to be more.
 
Xanthoria said:
No it won't give all the data but I think there's already some out there: the study mentioned above "will investigate the effect of different rider-to-horse weight ratios."

https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2017/06/20/heavy-science-rider-weight/

Other info online:

http://www.horsesciencenews.com/horseback-riding/how-much-weight-can-a-horse-carry.php
Study on rider to weight ratios

https://equusmagazine.com/management/weight_carry_062608
Effect of weight and incline

I think you'd need to dig deeper for more data, but some aspects could be guessed at reasonably well and you could adjust the weightings for certain outcomes based on common sense. We could say that any horse that's not mature in a musculoskeletal sense should not carry over 10% of it's weight for more than 20 minutes perhaps.

Then you'd need to take into account short vs long term use: is this horse going to repeat the same work with the same rider for a week or a year or 5 years? It might be fine in the short term but awful in the long term. And ideally the site would output suggestions to improve the results: get your saddle fitted professionally, avoid steep hills and heavy going, and hey - lose some weight! ;)
Click to expand...

Yup I am aware of what is out there, but mostly as a scientist (and I've read the papers when I had access) how woefully inadequate most of it is. The terms of horse recruitment for the AHT study is (necessarily) very slim and I don't think will clarify the situation for an awful lot of people and as far as I have read is not considering any longer term effects either.
 
Wagtail said:
But you didn't give the whole story did you? You said I'd advised you ten stone for a 14.2 cob when I actually said 15 stone if he was mature and not down hill. But what you were presenting was a down hill 5 year old with a lot of maturing to do. I still wouldn't have put more than 10 stone on him at that stage in his development.
Click to expand...

You said 10 stone at that stage, everyone else said 15 stone at that stage.

You also said 14 stone earlier and have now changed it to 15 stone. You've also said 14hh and 14.2hh.

For the record the maturing you said he needed to do never happened and he was always croup high. Its just how he was built. He also had more than 10" of bone, very short cannon bones, was relatively short backed and incredibly wide across the loins. He was like that from rising 5.
 
Leo Walker said:
You said 10 stone at that stage, everyone else said 15 stone at that stage.

You also said 14 stone earlier and have now changed it to 15 stone. You've also said 14hh and 14.2hh.

For the record the maturing you said he needed to do never happened and he was always croup high. Its just how he was built. He also had more than 10" of bone, very short cannon bones, was relatively short backed and incredibly wide across the loins. He was like that from rising 5.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if cannot remember the exact height of your horse. I changed it to 14.2 when I checked back on that very old thread. 14 stone was a weight I would put on a well built 14hh leg at each corner cob. 15 stone is what I would put on one 14.2. But at the time you posted that particular thread your cob was not a sturdy looking cob (though he did grow into one) he was a 5 year old that was bum high and in that photo looks like he had a dipped back (maybe from too much weight? Who knows? But he had a marked dip in his back). I don't care a flying fig what everyone else said at the time. My view was ten stone for that horse at that time. I did think he could carry more when I saw pictures you posted of him a few years later. But looking at that picture I don't think he should have been carrying you at that time.
 
I have seen a mature croup high 14.1 cob with a fairly tall 15 stone rider, the pony could only take a 16-16.5" saddle was very unlikely to be able to take 15 stones, whether in soft or hard muscled condition.

And thermal imaging is not accepted universally as a way to pick up on broad issues. Pliance testing would be more useful, but ultimately I think we can all use some common sense and look at horses and riders, see whether backs are dented, whether saddles are sinking out of balance, and know whether there is likely to be an issue with rider's weight.
 
Okaaay, can I just ask everyone to stop and move back a second..... drum roll...


This is officially my most popular ever started thread!!!!
:D go me! Totally unexpected I thought it very boring ;)

You may all resume....
 
Leo Walker. I just checked the thread again and he was actually 4. You described him as a rising 5 year old in Nov 2014 so he would not have been 5 until the following year. He was just a baby and you were riding him at over 15 stone (plus tack). No wonder I said 10 stone.
 
Last edited:
sbloom said:
I have seen a mature croup high 14.1 cob with a fairly tall 15 stone rider, the pony could only take a 16-16.5" saddle was very unlikely to be able to take 15 stones, whether in soft or hard muscled condition.

And thermal imaging is not accepted universally as a way to pick up on broad issues. Pliance testing would be more useful, but ultimately I think we can all use some common sense and look at horses and riders, see whether backs are dented, whether saddles are sinking out of balance, and know whether there is likely to be an issue with rider's weight.
Click to expand...

I had not considered the saddle. I have the same problem with my mare. Whilst I am not too heavy for her, at 5'10" I need a 17.5" saddle. The maximum she can take is a 17". Saddler has recommended a close contact which fits us both. She's checking it again today as I'm still not convinced it isn't causing her problems although no soreness has been found by either vet or chiro.
 
Always consider the saddle, it is much more the limiting factor, as weight carriers tend to be short backed. Seen much more than larger riders on finer horses and ponies where the issue is more visibly obvious.
 
sbloom when you say backs are dented, that isn't a phenomenon I have come across do you mean the saddle leaving an indent on removal or have I the wrong end of the stick?
 
ester said:
sbloom when you say backs are dented, that isn't a phenomenon I have come across do you mean the saddle leaving an indent on removal or have I the wrong end of the stick?
Click to expand...

I have seen it too. We have a horse here that had it when he arrived as one of his saddles didn't fit correctly. The other one was fine. Strangely, they had both been fitted by the same saddler at the same time! I also had another gelding here a few years ago that had exactly the same. Again a too narrow saddle. When this was resolved he actually gained two inches either side on his back template. The muscle wasting thankfully recovered with correct saddle fit and back strengthening work.
 
Wagtail said:
Sorry, if cannot remember the exact height of your horse. I changed it to 14.2 when I checked back on that very old thread. 14 stone was a weight I would put on a well built 14hh leg at each corner cob. 15 stone is what I would put on one 14.2. But at the time you posted that particular thread your cob was not a sturdy looking cob (though he did grow into one) he was a 5 year old that was bum high and in that photo looks like he had a dipped back (maybe from too much weight? Who knows? But he had a marked dip in his back). I don't care a flying fig what everyone else said at the time. My view was ten stone for that horse at that time. I did think he could carry more when I saw pictures you posted of him a few years later. But looking at that picture I don't think he should have been carrying you at that time.
Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if this supposed dip in his back was from too much weight, seeing as the heaviest weight he had had on his back at that time was 9 stone and he'd only been sat on about 20 times. Must be a weird dip that suddenly disappeared never to be seen again though when heavier people did start riding him. He didnt change from that photo.

The only difference was he was hogged and clipped and he put weight on which we then dieted back off him. Seeing as he died when he was rising 6, there werent any photos a few years later either.

You can not give a fig about anything you like :) However the whole point of my post was that you said a 10 stone limit, although you are now clearly back tracking. Pretty sure you also said you would tell my tall but skinny 11 stone teenage rider to get off as he was too heavy.

Every single qualified professional from vets to instructors said different. And some of those people are the ones now saying I am too heavy for my current horse, so clearly they are not of the opinion that horses should be made to carry anyone who wants to ride them.

This is the last time I'm going to read or comment on this thread as its these comments are derailing it. I will never agree with you, even more so as you've made it clear that you have huge issues with food and weight on other threads, which means your view will always be skewed.
 
Leo Walker said:
I'd be very surprised if this supposed dip in his back was from too much weight, seeing as the heaviest weight he had had on his back at that time was 9 stone and he'd only been sat on about 20 times. Must be a weird dip that suddenly disappeared never to be seen again though when heavier people did start riding him. He didnt change from that photo.

The only difference was he was hogged and clipped and he put weight on which we then dieted back off him. Seeing as he died when he was rising 6, there werent any photos a few years later either.

You can not give a fig about anything you like :) However the whole point of my post was that you said a 10 stone limit, although you are now clearly back tracking. Pretty sure you also said you would tell my tall but skinny 11 stone teenage rider to get off as he was too heavy.

Every single qualified professional from vets to instructors said different. And some of those people are the ones now saying I am too heavy for my current horse, so clearly they are not of the opinion that horses should be made to carry anyone who wants to ride them.

This is the last time I'm going to read or comment on this thread as its these comments are derailing it. I will never agree with you, even more so as you've made it clear that you have huge issues with food and weight on other threads, which means your view will always be skewed.
Click to expand...

Huge issues with food and weight? Sorry, but as you are the one with the weight issue, not me, I don't understand why you think someone who is within the healthy weight range and who eats a healthy diet but also sweets and chocolates has a problem with food and weight. What problem is that? And as for back tracking, I am unable to remember the height and age of every horse that I have suggested a weight for on this forum 3 years ago. I still agree with my assessment then that a down hill, immature 4 year old should not be made to carry 15 + stone plus tack. Any expert advising otherwise should be ashamed of themselves. Ten stone is the maximum I would have put on him. This is the horse concerned a 14.1/2hh 4 year old who does not look like a horse that could carry 15 stone plus tack. His back looks weak and dipped, and quite long too.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
sbloom said:
Always consider the saddle, it is much more the limiting factor, as weight carriers tend to be short backed. Seen much more than larger riders on finer horses and ponies where the issue is more visibly obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree with this! its such a problem with the riders weight wrongly distributed, often even hanging over the back of the saddle putting pressure on the lumbar spine, rather than centrally and balanced as intended.

The hefty cobs and heavier types as you mention often only take up to a 16.5 to 17inch saddle and some even shorter and they simply don't fit the riders that these horses attract, I wish more people would consider this!
 
I often wonder if we are right about saddle fit, though. We have a rule that English saddles mustn't bear with after the last rib. But Western saddles more than cover that area with a huge panel. I've no experience of the use of western saddles, do they cause issues in the loin area?
 
Western saddles are constructed completely differently, look up saddle trees and see the difference. And yes, dents under the back of the saddle, if you see some of the section Bs stripped in the show ring, as an example, you'll almost certainly see some.

And it's not just about being on the back of the saddle, it's about the average, not just peak, pounds per square inch under a saddle even if you can keep it in balance and keep the rider just about in it.
 
ester said:
sbloom when you say backs are dented, that isn't a phenomenon I have come across do you mean the saddle leaving an indent on removal or have I the wrong end of the stick?
Click to expand...

I thought this needed a more specific answer than I put in the previous post. It can range from a slight softness or flat spot, always towards the outer edge of the rear panels, but frequently further forwards than where the saddle ought to be as so many saddles run forwards, and therefore tip back placing too much weight on the back half. It can progress through a visible shadow and very flat spot, right up to imprints the shape of the saddle on the horse's back, which are semi permanent, and in an older horse may never come back.

I will be posting some articles on this kind of thing, indicators your saddle no longer fits, keep an eye out because there will be photos showing mild cases. I do have a photo of a severe case somewhere, it was for an article in Showing World in about 2009, but no idea where it is on my PC :-s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top