How heavy is too heavy?

[bugbee717]

I would love to some research, which breeds would you cover as all breeds are different, one size does not fit all as such. I have two friesians both are very different, in shape and size.

 

[Wagtail]

Wagtail you do not know me or my horse, or what is able to carry or it's fitness level, nor do you know my fitness level or how I ride. Unless you know this I do not feel you are in a position to say what is right or wrong for me or my horse.

It doesn't matter if yo and your horse are in peak fitness or if you are the most balanced rider in the universe, I would still consider you too heavy for a 500 kg 14.3 pony. Sorry. There is nothing wrong with being overweight. Some people can be very healthy and fit even tough they are overweight. I don't have a problem with it at all! But I do think that it is unfair to ask a horse to carry you if you are that heavy.

 

[Luci07]

Well this post has brought out some very strong feelings!. However, yet again please do not confuse opinion with fact. I have found some posts very interesting and others highly annoying! I am no lightweight either as move between 12 -13 stone - as in get up to the higher reaches, diet to get back down again, but I don't have any small horses either. Anyone "guessing" my weight always gets it wrong because as a rider I am pretty solid. I would tend to have put a higher weight limit on horses (not 12 stone) because I know quite a few people who go over that and have no problems although I will grant you I don't know anyone who rides at the higher end of the scales mentioned. For the record I personally prefer to ride big (ger) horses as I learnt on a 15.3 as a child and rather missed out on ponies. Current horses are 16.3 TB x cob and 17.1 ISH. I have nothing against ponies and feel I missed out as a child but it does mean I automatically feel more comfortable on a horse. Smallest I ever had was still a 16.1 TB.

For me, as I have never been a skinny minnie, my focus is more on trying to improve my fitness. I also asked my friend to check how I was sitting last night as felt slightly one sided and it looks like my old problems have crept back in (knee injuries, over compensating as a result) so will have to go back to get properly aligned after my holiday.

I can see both sides of the story, but please PLEASE read the earlier posts carefully before sparking off. I have seen constant misintepretation of some earlier statements which just keeps the same views going round in circles. I am interested when I learn from facts (and never knew about the 20% ruling either) and different views but can we keep "views/opinions" distinct from "fact"!!

 

[Wolfie]

Personally, I think as long as the horse is suited to the rider and the rider is aware of what the horse can do then there is not so much of a problem. Leisure horses are generally only ridden for an hour a day at most, so it is unlikely that their joints will be worked into the ground, provided the horse is matched to his rider. What does worry me is when you see a rider mounted on a horse that is obviously far too slight for purpose. I have been to a few sj competitions where there have been ladies far in excess of 12 stone mounted on lightweight foreign horses. Not saying the larger person should not jump, just choose a suitable horse.

 

[tazzle]

I personally dont like the broad statement of the 20% weight unless it is clearly applied to a horse at its optimum fit weight otherwise we do get to the logical but erronious conclusion that an obese horse can carry more than a light one ...... which is patently not correct

The amount of "bone" too is not always reliable or fact either ..... just a general guide ..... density of bone too is relevant , I believe arabs have denser bones and medically denser will equate to more strength.


I think it is very very difficult to get actual fact sorted out as even the professionals / scientists will deliver different "facts" so how can those of us escape then adding in our own experiences / values / opinions. .. and sincerely believing them



I rather look at the build of the horse ... a "leg at each corner" horse with a shorter back should imo carry more weight even if its shorter in height. I also take the horses conformation into account because legs that are "compromised" already will be far more likely to develop arthritic changes for example if lost stress / hard work done.

If the horse / pone has good conformation then it will be able to work better
The work / rider fitness too is of great importance.


According to some of the theories / opinions I should not be riding Taz and she certainly should not be able to do this and remain free of physical effects / be physically stressed.

20 miles in 2 hours 19 mins ... not bad at novice level and for a native



To balance that and show that I really do look at it from all angles... my half shire mare (now on loan to a wonderful person) was previously on loan to a person who deceived me and the person who was riding her (lighter than me) was very unbalanced and could not rise to the trot / banging on her back .... and this went on for months When I toook B back she felt like a banana and needed chiro treatment and body work to get her back fit enough to start riding again. She muscled up correctly and then once I started riding her she improved greatly .......it was not the weight of the previous rider its was BAD riding.

So I guess what Iam concoluding is that I would be vey careful about weight limits on a young, unfit horse / pone or with a beginner / unlabanced /unfit rider.



I dont know tbh how I would "calculate" a general rule as to what weight is the top limit for any given reasonably fit horse of given breed /size . I just know that I am aware of my weight ( which for me is not ideal but for a 6 foot man might be fine ) and that I would not ride a 14.1 hackney for example ..... or even a young unfit finer boned 14.1 welshie ...... but that my 14.1 welshie is absolutely fine. I know I am personally fit enough and balanced enough not to bounce up and down in an uncontrolled manner.

 

[Chloe..x]

To be honest, this topic is now going round and round in circles. Everyone is gonna differ on opinions especially when it comes to sensitive topics such as weight.

If I was doing a degree to do with horses at uni, I'd love to do this as a dissertation topic but i'm doing medicinal chemistry so pretty irrelevant.

 

[The Virgin Dubble]

Just my opinion, but far too many people concentrate on the weight/expertise of the rider, rather than the fitness of the horse, which is far more important.

It's no good saying 'I'm heavy, but I don't do much with my horse, so it's okay'. An unfit horse that doesn't do much, will feel the strain of carrying a heavy rider, much more than a fitter horse would.

It's up to the rider to take responsibility and make sure the horse is fit enough to carry their weight comfortably...

 

[tazzle]

Just my opinion, but far too many people concentrate on the weight/expertise of the rider, rather than the fitness of the horse, which is far more important.

It's no good saying 'I'm heavy, but I don't do much with my horse, so it's okay'. An unfit horse that doesn't do much, will feel the strain of carrying a heavy rider, much more than a fitter horse would.

It's up to the rider to take responsibility and make sure the horse is fit enough to carry their weight comfortably...

definately ..... both have to be fit

 

[SmallHunter]

Whats so hard about losing a few stone cos your horse will benefit in the long run. I don't see why its socially acceptable to put horses under such strain.

I'm 5ft 10 and weigh 12st well within the healthy weight range for my height if I were to lose a few stone and went down to 9st I would be underweight and unhealthy for my height.
Just because someone weighs 12st does not make them overweight it just might be that they are not a midget

My poor 15hh mare clearly buckling under the weight of my obviously huge a*** had to put up with me for 8 yrs don't know how she's coped

 

[Spudlet]

I'm 5ft9, weigh somewhere around 11 stone. If I lost much more weight I would be ill. When I say I prefer a larger horse to carry me, most people look at me like I'm nuts! Us tall people are more than capable of riding, we just need horses built for proper-sized people rather than little squirts It's not our fault if we're surrounded by midgets.

ETA - how much do we think the average sized cavalry trooper in full ceremonial kit weighs... under ten stone? I hardly think so. Their horses always look pretty well to me!

 

[shadowboy]

There are so many threads on weight and what a horse can carry.

Most of the time I think people are too 'PC' to be honest or we are not honest enough with ourselves

I am not a skinny person but truly believe that we often don't correctly consider the weight of rider enough!! we kid ourselves and each other

Some say 'In the old days even a small horse would carry a 15st farmer hunting' yes but he would be knackered by the time he was 12/13.

It is said 'oh I am ??st and for example my 15.2h TB carries me fine. Horse may carry you fine for x amount of time BUT it WILL cause extra wear and tear on joints etc

Doctors regularly tell patients lose weight and your knees/hips/back will be much better!!!! and it often works

My view is anyone over 12st who wants a horse to be healthy for years and years needs to chose a horse very carefully, for both bone, breeding and conformation. Obviously the more over 12st you are the more carefully you need to chose and take into account what you want to do with the horse

totally agree- and too many people don't consider that the tack is another stone too- so your 16 stone person in boots, hat, with GP Leather saddle and body protector is actually 17 stone.

This is why I was worried about backing my 13.3hh New Forest Pony as I am 9stone before equipment (although only 5'4)...

 

[kerilli]

hear hear soulfull. and as for the wonderful line I hear fairly often about horses not complaining about the weight... words fail me.
shadowboy, my saddles all weigh about a stone, by the time i've added in my kit, and all the rest of the tack, it's probably more like a stone and a half or even more.
i'm carefully steering clear of the rest of this thread, too many hot potatoes... just want to say that obviously one needs to take into consideration what the horse (lightweight or heavyweight, of whatever size) is being asked to do. a nice slow hack is one thing, galloping xc with a heavy rider on its back is something quite different...

 

[PapaFrita]

12stone plus tack etc makes at least 14stone plus. The Whitakers are absolutely tiny so I dont think they would weight that much!
Say someone 14 stones+ rode my horse, thats around 16 stone plus in total and I personally wouldn't want my horses carrying that weight. I don't think many horses are infact fit enough to carry such weight unlike the top showjumpers/eventers which are purposely muscled up to the max and at the the height of fitness. I very much doubt these horses carrying 20 stone could go around a three day event or jump a grand prix now.

An average sized bloke can easily weigh 12 stone. And no one is talking about a 20 stone person riding round Badminton or Grand Prix SJing or even dressage. We're talking about the majority of horses who are ridden one hour a day and often not every day. Eventing/SJing fitness is not required for most riding club activities. As I've said before, there IS no hard and fast rule; a heavy but balanced rider will feel lighter than a smaller 'sack of spuds' and obviously a horse in good health and with good conformation will have less trouble carrying weight than one who has had soundness issues or has poor conformation.
FTR there ARE several event riders who I think are too large for their chosen sport, which, incidentally, is one of the most gruelling equestrian events there is,and not comparable to general riding activities. Buck Davison, Becky Johnson and Amy Tryon are all VERY sturdy and whilst clearly competent enough to be selected to represent their countries at major events round the world, I can't help but think that their horses' tasks would be that much easier if they shed a few pounds.

 

[Spudlet]

As I've said before, there IS no hard and fast rule; a heavy but balanced rider will feel lighter than a smaller 'sack of spuds' ...

Spud-ist

 

[shadowboy]

BTW it dont think 12 stone is a weight limit, more a point where you should consider " is this the right horse for me? " can this horse comfortably carry me and do a good job?

 

[JessnGeorge]

Interesting how long the "fat" issue has taken to get round to the horse world isn't it? We all know deep down what our horses are capable of and how we feel in ourselves. I KNOW when I have put weight on and it doesn't suit me, I am 5ft 4in and weight 10st 3, I should be 8.5st (but am in 28 waist jods, size 12 tops), my boy is 16hh and barely knows I am there, I have an independent seat and light hands, if you are a heavier rider and are perhaps inexperienced then the choice of horse may be different (and you may need to be advised of this from someone more experienced and not be offended). This thread is all based on personal opinion, but personally I wouldn't and couldn't ride if I were 20st

My point is that we can't all look as skinny as Ellen Whittaker/Cheryl Cole etc, but we are responsible horse owners and deep down we all know what is right for us and our horses.

 

[jenki13]

I'm 5ft9, weigh somewhere around 11 stone. If I lost much more weight I would be ill. When I say I prefer a larger horse to carry me, most people look at me like I'm nuts! Us tall people are more than capable of riding, we just need horses built for proper-sized people rather than little squirts It's not our fault if we're surrounded by midgets.

ETA - how much do we think the average sized cavalry trooper in full ceremonial kit weighs... under ten stone? I hardly think so. Their horses always look pretty well to me!

I tried searching for how much the ceremonial kit of the household cavalry actually weighs but can't seem to. However each of the silver drums (for the drum horses) weighs 68lbs each! That's 136lbs before saddle & rider.. so about 9 + 1/2 stone.. + 12 stone for a rider = over 21 stone & as they are all men I'll be surprised if they all only weigh 12 stone (with saddle). So can't discount any horse from carrying over 20 stone!

I can't find anything about how old drum horses are when they retire but it was said that the regimental horses often retire at 17/18 & start at 4 years old.
In all as long as the horse is picked carefully & looked after well Some horses can carry a lot more weight & stay sound for a long time. Especially when only performing Low Impact activity i.e. no jumping or galloping on hard ground.

 

[Lady La La]

I was having this debate with someone at a show not long ago...

I was saying to a woman in the line up next to me that, until I'd lost some weight I wouldn't be doing much with my other horse, a fine 15hh tbx. She replied that she thought this was sensible, and proceeded to tell me how disgusting it was seeing blatantly overweight riders on fine legged horses all over the show grounds.. and that this was why she rode a cob, and that if she ever got over 14 stone she would stop riding him too - This was where the conversation ended as the judge then had a shuffle round and stuck her and her grossly over weight cob towards the back of the line.

.. I did wonder to myself why she thought letting her horse carry such a dangerous amount of weight was alright.. but that if she put another stone or so on she would do the right thing and stop riding him..

People are mental.

 

[Spudlet]

I also wonder how much of the perception that weight in single figures is the only way to go (which does seem to be the perception of some posters on this thread, admittedly from skimming through replies rather than an in-depth reading) is related to the fact that riding now tends to be a female dominated sport - hence, the participants are generally physically smaller than men, and therefore seeing participants of a lower weight therefore becomes the norm, in a way that possibly would not have been the case when more men rode. What I mean is, the capability of the horses has not changed - but our perceptions of what is 'normal' have.

 

[Wagtail]

I tried searching for how much the ceremonial kit of the household cavalry actually weighs but can't seem to. However each of the silver drums (for the drum horses) weighs 68lbs each! That's 136lbs before saddle & rider.. so about 9 + 1/2 stone.. + 12 stone for a rider = over 21 stone & as they are all men I'll be surprised if they all only weigh 12 stone (with saddle). So can't discount any horse from carrying over 20 stone!

I can't find anything about how old drum horses are when they retire but it was said that the regimental horses often retire at 17/18 & start at 4 years old.
In all as long as the horse is picked carefully & looked after well Some horses can carry a lot more weight & stay sound for a long time. Especially when only performing Low Impact activity i.e. no jumping or galloping on hard ground.

The drum horses used are shire types not 14.3hh ponies like some on here that weight 20 stone are riding. However, just because the cavalery does smething does not make it right. Horses got killed and maimed in wars, so that must be right too by your logic.

 

[Wagtail]

NOW FOR THE SCIENCE:

From Horse Science News

While most healthy horses can easily carry a rider and saddle, they do have their limits. Now researchers have identified a threshold for when a rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably carry.

The scientists base their findings on detailed measurements taken of eight horses that were ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of their body weight. The horses ranged in size from 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds).

When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the horses showed relatively little indication of stress. It's when they were packing weights of 25% that physical signs changed markedly, and these became accentuated under 30% loads.

The horses had noticeably faster breathing and higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider amounting to 25% or more of their body weight. A day after trotting and cantering with the heftier weights, the horses' muscles showed substantially greater soreness and tightness. Those horses that were least sore from the exercise had wider loins, the part of a horse's back located between their last rib and croup.

Based on these results, the study's authors recommend that horses not be loaded with greater than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack and rider.

Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute has concluded with the same weight guideline that the US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published in 1920.

 

[Lady La La]

So, going by that, my fine legged 450kg horse could carry up to and around 14 stone without finding it a struggle?

...Is that right? ..my maths has a tendancey to let me down when its needed the most (along with my spelling, etc)

If so, I'll crack on with the cake. Got a few more stone to go before I need to worry

 

[Yertis]

14 stone 2lb or 198 lb, go and have a nice big gooey cream donut lol!!

 

[marmalade76]

.
FTR there ARE several event riders who I think are too large for their chosen sport, which, incidentally, is one of the most gruelling equestrian events there is,and not comparable to general riding activities. Buck Davison, Becky Johnson and Amy Tryon are all VERY sturdy and whilst clearly competent enough to be selected to represent their countries at major events round the world, I can't help but think that their horses' tasks would be that much easier if they shed a few pounds.

I agree, Amy tryon in particular is not only tall but built like a BSH!

 

[tazzle]

When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the horses showed relatively little indication of stress.

thank you for finding and quoting the scientific evidence .......... and it does back up my stated situation with my welshie as being fit and not harmed as she carries within that limit.

Did the research say what types of horses were used in the study as I do still agree with lady lala that the build / type of the horse not just it's weight is relevant.... there are many 14.1 pones I would NOT ride as I consider myself too heavy for them.

 

[bugbee717]

this is the report from the equine journal which horse science news wrote the report from

Abstract
To answer the question of whether horse height, cannon bone circumference, and loin width can be used as indicators of weight-carrying ability in light horses, eight mature horses underwent a submaximal mounted standard exercise test under four conditions: carrying 15, 20, 25, or 30% of their body weight. Heart rate was monitored, plasma lactate concentration was determined in jugular blood samples pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and 10 minutes post-exercise, with serum creatine kinase activity determined at the same times as plasma lactate concentrations, with additional samples collected at 24 hours and 48 hours post-exercise. Muscle soreness and muscle tightness scores were determined using a subjective scoring system 24 hours before and 24 hours after exercise. Heart rates remained significantly higher when the horses carried 25 and 30% of their body weight. Plasma lactate concentrations immediately and 10 minutes after exercise differed when horses carried 30% of their body weight compared with 15, 20, and 25% weight carriage. Horses tended to have a greater change in muscle soreness and muscle tightness when carrying 25% of their body weight, and a significant change in soreness and tightness scores was found in horses carrying 30% of their body weight. Loin width and cannon bone circumference were found to be negatively correlated to the changes in muscle soreness and tightness scores. In conclusion, the data suggest that horses with wider loin and thicker cannon bone circumference became less sore when carrying heavier weight loads.


think I may pay the $15 for the whole report, so the report show that horses with wider loins and thicker cannon bone have less soreness when carrying weight.

 

[bugbee717]

This is the link
http://www.j-evs.com/article/PIIS0737080607004133/abstract

 

[*hic*]

NOW FOR THE SCIENCE:

From Horse Science News

While most healthy horses can easily carry a rider and saddle, they do have their limits. Now researchers have identified a threshold for when a rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably carry.

The scientists base their findings on detailed measurements taken of eight horses that were ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of their body weight. The horses ranged in size from 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds).

When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the horses showed relatively little indication of stress. It's when they were packing weights of 25% that physical signs changed markedly, and these became accentuated under 30% loads.

The horses had noticeably faster breathing and higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider amounting to 25% or more of their body weight. A day after trotting and cantering with the heftier weights, the horses' muscles showed substantially greater soreness and tightness. Those horses that were least sore from the exercise had wider loins, the part of a horse's back located between their last rib and croup.

Based on these results, the study's authors recommend that horses not be loaded with greater than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack and rider.

Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute has concluded with the same weight guideline that the US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published in 1920.

On the back of that would anyone NOW like to comment on this very fit 13.3 470Kg Welsh carrying 14 stone of rider and tack. Note that the scientific evidence shows changes above 25% not 20% and this boy is carrying (just) under 20%. He does have rather a lot of bone as well, in fact well over 9 inches. In my defence I am wearing my body protector here.

 

[jenki13]

The drum horses used are shire types not 14.3hh ponies like some on here that weight 20 stone are riding. However, just because the cavalery does smething does not make it right. Horses got killed and maimed in wars, so that must be right too by your logic.

No. That's why I said SOME horses. Also I was just giving an example of horses that are riding in some heavy kit & are ok with it. As I said it has be a well chosen horse.
Your last statement is like me saying by your logic no heavy horses should be pulling drays or carts because they are over 20 stone in weight.

 

[*hic*]

this is the report from the equine journal which horse science news wrote the report from

Abstract
To answer the question of whether horse height, cannon bone circumference, and loin width can be used as indicators of weight-carrying ability in light horses, eight mature horses underwent a submaximal mounted standard exercise test under four conditions: carrying 15, 20, 25, or 30% of their body weight. Heart rate was monitored, plasma lactate concentration was determined in jugular blood samples pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and 10 minutes post-exercise, with serum creatine kinase activity determined at the same times as plasma lactate concentrations, with additional samples collected at 24 hours and 48 hours post-exercise. Muscle soreness and muscle tightness scores were determined using a subjective scoring system 24 hours before and 24 hours after exercise. Heart rates remained significantly higher when the horses carried 25 and 30% of their body weight. Plasma lactate concentrations immediately and 10 minutes after exercise differed when horses carried 30% of their body weight compared with 15, 20, and 25% weight carriage. Horses tended to have a greater change in muscle soreness and muscle tightness when carrying 25% of their body weight, and a significant change in soreness and tightness scores was found in horses carrying 30% of their body weight. Loin width and cannon bone circumference were found to be negatively correlated to the changes in muscle soreness and tightness scores. In conclusion, the data suggest that horses with wider loin and thicker cannon bone circumference became less sore when carrying heavier weight loads.


think I may pay the $15 for the whole report, so the report show that horses with wider loins and thicker cannon bone have less soreness when carrying weight.

Ah, chaps like the little (in height, dear things, in height) Welsh I have pictured. He's got such a lot of bone and width through his body and even now he has finally retired (he was in his twenties when the picture was taken) and has little added muscle tone he still looks fit and muscled compared to many other horses still in work. He's just a superbly built riding animal.