Sukistokes2
Well-Known Member
Rider's Life
Oklahoma Girl Living The Rider's Life in the UK
▼
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Rider to Horse Weight Ratio Studies Bring Back Bad Memories
One of the most horrific moments of my young life happened when I ran up to the pony rides in the TG&Y parking lot, so happy to even be near a horse, and the man took one look at me, and instead of the normal plucking me up to plop me on a fat little pony tethered to a horse walker type contraption for my five minutes of utter bliss, he said "Nope, you are too big." My world was crushed. I had been made fun of at school for being fat, which hurt, but not like this hurt. I don't know if he meant I was just too big in general or if he was saying I was fat, but either way, it hurt. There was no explanation, just the curt manner and finality of his statement.
Today, I am still a "Fuller Filly" but thanks to Nikki and riding, I am a healthy and not as "full" as I could be without riding. I still have the same hang ups as that slightly over weight child along with a million others. I've lost 70 lbs in the past few years, and even though my body was smaller and I was wearing a more socially acceptable clothing size, I was still a "fat girl" in my head, thanks to years of kids being kids, my mom putting me on endless misinformed diets and my now ex-husband telling me I was lucky to have him and that he'd love me more if I weighed less. (Just for the record, I lost a bunch of weight then too and then I left him.)
My point in all this rambling is that there is a subject that is going around in rider's circles that is hitting close to home. The subject is rider to horse weight ratio.
There are a few schools of thought on this issue. Back home, you can see huge cowboys in loads of gear with huge saddles riding slight Arabs, Morgans, Quarter Horses, Appaloosas, all manner of horses. The horses are gleaming and healthy and winning awards and nobody is telling the cowboy that all this time they have been injuring their horse's back due to their weight. The cowboy would probably punch them or shoot them or something. Another view is from the racing industry where the jockeys are super lightweight and weight is carefully monitored. And you bet this isn't for the welfare of the horse. It's all about the money the horse will win if he's not too weighed down to run faster than the other horses. I also like to think of the Mongolian horses carrying their man-sized riders, trotting across the steppes.
Then here in the UK you have the English point of view. A lot of resources quote that a horse can carry up to 20% of his body weight (including the rider, rider's clothing and tack) safely. This study, says that the limit can be up to 25% There has been a very silly report lately that claimed that now they believe that a horse can only perform optimally if he carries 10% of his weight and anything over 15% is cruelty and will cause all sorts of damage such as lameness and back issues. This means that my (approx.) 1500 lb. horse, who is a draft cross, can only carry a 150 lb. rider, oh and don't forget the tack and clothes, so more like a 130 lb. rider. My horse is nearly as wide as she is tall (and she's 16.2 so she's not short) so if you have ever been around horses, you would know that this is absolutely stupid. This study claims to be only stating this for the horse's welfare. Well, think about it, the study states that one in twenty horses is carrying more than 10% of body weight. What happens to those 19 horses when they can no longer be ridden by their owners? Will they be sold to a bunch of thin people? Not likely, if there was some evil world where this 10% thing was enforced, I bet there would be a load more horses in sanctuaries and even going to slaughter. And besides, have you ever seen some thin person that was completely unbalanced and jabbing a horse in the mouth? I bet you have. And I bet you've seen a "fuller filly" that has the lightest of hands and a beautifully balanced seat. The study didn't take that into account.
Thank goodness there are still some people with common sense in the world. This article made a great point. Please click the link and have a read. A vet says that even jockeys would break the 10% rule in most cases. And to quote someone with some common sense from the article:
Sarah Blackburn, owner of Ravensteed Equestrian Centre in Belfast said a rider's ability and fitness level should be taken into account when choosing a mount. ''The rider's ability, the type of work the horse is asked to do and the duration will also affect how much weight it can comfortably carry,'' she said. ''An unfit, beginner rider who is lacking in balance will damage a horse much quicker and to a greater degree than an experienced rider with good balance.''
Another voice of reason and one of my heroes, Suzanne Wild, Fuller Filly in Chief, founder of Fuller Fillies riding clothing, had this to say:
I would love to see the research behind this article; it IS and ALWAYS has been the case that the rider should aim to weigh no more than 20% of their horse's weight (and the rider's weight should include their saddle). This information can quickly be accredited by visiting the BHS website - and their information has the backing of all of the specialists in Equine Health such as McTimmony & Bowen...
I worry about an article that has inaccuracies within the first few lines!
Let's think about this - our relationship with horses stems from Knights of Old riding them into battle. All men (and therefore generally heavy boned), they wore suits of armour that weighed at least 2 stone in addition. Did they ride Giant Clydesdales? Super-Percehrons? No, they largely rode Friesians, Arab crosses and small ponies...How different a world we would live in if they had been told they were too heavy to ride their horses into battle!
Most larger riders are super-sensitive about their weight and adjust their riding to compensate - meaning they are lighter riders as a result; a horse's back is far more likely to be damaged by 12 stone of flailing novice flopping around on it than 14 stone of well-controlled Rider!
Dressage is an extremely elitist sport. You have to be rich, have a warmblood, super talented, perfect looking, etc., to be even taken mildly seriously. The rest of us are just playing at it, apparently. This kind of nonsense just gives the super elitist even more ammunition to be super elite. Way to crowd the rest of us out. Guess what, without the other 19 out of 20 riders, you wouldn't have much of a sport.
It's like being back in school again or standing in front of that grizzled cowboy at the TG&Y. The dressage queens and riding school harpies point at me and say "You're too big". Will I ever escape? Probably not. But guess what? I'm going to go ride anyway. And I'd wager that I can ride better than a lot of my smaller counterparts.
Oklahoma Girl Living The Rider's Life in the UK
▼
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Rider to Horse Weight Ratio Studies Bring Back Bad Memories
One of the most horrific moments of my young life happened when I ran up to the pony rides in the TG&Y parking lot, so happy to even be near a horse, and the man took one look at me, and instead of the normal plucking me up to plop me on a fat little pony tethered to a horse walker type contraption for my five minutes of utter bliss, he said "Nope, you are too big." My world was crushed. I had been made fun of at school for being fat, which hurt, but not like this hurt. I don't know if he meant I was just too big in general or if he was saying I was fat, but either way, it hurt. There was no explanation, just the curt manner and finality of his statement.
Today, I am still a "Fuller Filly" but thanks to Nikki and riding, I am a healthy and not as "full" as I could be without riding. I still have the same hang ups as that slightly over weight child along with a million others. I've lost 70 lbs in the past few years, and even though my body was smaller and I was wearing a more socially acceptable clothing size, I was still a "fat girl" in my head, thanks to years of kids being kids, my mom putting me on endless misinformed diets and my now ex-husband telling me I was lucky to have him and that he'd love me more if I weighed less. (Just for the record, I lost a bunch of weight then too and then I left him.)
My point in all this rambling is that there is a subject that is going around in rider's circles that is hitting close to home. The subject is rider to horse weight ratio.
There are a few schools of thought on this issue. Back home, you can see huge cowboys in loads of gear with huge saddles riding slight Arabs, Morgans, Quarter Horses, Appaloosas, all manner of horses. The horses are gleaming and healthy and winning awards and nobody is telling the cowboy that all this time they have been injuring their horse's back due to their weight. The cowboy would probably punch them or shoot them or something. Another view is from the racing industry where the jockeys are super lightweight and weight is carefully monitored. And you bet this isn't for the welfare of the horse. It's all about the money the horse will win if he's not too weighed down to run faster than the other horses. I also like to think of the Mongolian horses carrying their man-sized riders, trotting across the steppes.
Then here in the UK you have the English point of view. A lot of resources quote that a horse can carry up to 20% of his body weight (including the rider, rider's clothing and tack) safely. This study, says that the limit can be up to 25% There has been a very silly report lately that claimed that now they believe that a horse can only perform optimally if he carries 10% of his weight and anything over 15% is cruelty and will cause all sorts of damage such as lameness and back issues. This means that my (approx.) 1500 lb. horse, who is a draft cross, can only carry a 150 lb. rider, oh and don't forget the tack and clothes, so more like a 130 lb. rider. My horse is nearly as wide as she is tall (and she's 16.2 so she's not short) so if you have ever been around horses, you would know that this is absolutely stupid. This study claims to be only stating this for the horse's welfare. Well, think about it, the study states that one in twenty horses is carrying more than 10% of body weight. What happens to those 19 horses when they can no longer be ridden by their owners? Will they be sold to a bunch of thin people? Not likely, if there was some evil world where this 10% thing was enforced, I bet there would be a load more horses in sanctuaries and even going to slaughter. And besides, have you ever seen some thin person that was completely unbalanced and jabbing a horse in the mouth? I bet you have. And I bet you've seen a "fuller filly" that has the lightest of hands and a beautifully balanced seat. The study didn't take that into account.
Thank goodness there are still some people with common sense in the world. This article made a great point. Please click the link and have a read. A vet says that even jockeys would break the 10% rule in most cases. And to quote someone with some common sense from the article:
Sarah Blackburn, owner of Ravensteed Equestrian Centre in Belfast said a rider's ability and fitness level should be taken into account when choosing a mount. ''The rider's ability, the type of work the horse is asked to do and the duration will also affect how much weight it can comfortably carry,'' she said. ''An unfit, beginner rider who is lacking in balance will damage a horse much quicker and to a greater degree than an experienced rider with good balance.''
Another voice of reason and one of my heroes, Suzanne Wild, Fuller Filly in Chief, founder of Fuller Fillies riding clothing, had this to say:
I would love to see the research behind this article; it IS and ALWAYS has been the case that the rider should aim to weigh no more than 20% of their horse's weight (and the rider's weight should include their saddle). This information can quickly be accredited by visiting the BHS website - and their information has the backing of all of the specialists in Equine Health such as McTimmony & Bowen...
I worry about an article that has inaccuracies within the first few lines!
Let's think about this - our relationship with horses stems from Knights of Old riding them into battle. All men (and therefore generally heavy boned), they wore suits of armour that weighed at least 2 stone in addition. Did they ride Giant Clydesdales? Super-Percehrons? No, they largely rode Friesians, Arab crosses and small ponies...How different a world we would live in if they had been told they were too heavy to ride their horses into battle!
Most larger riders are super-sensitive about their weight and adjust their riding to compensate - meaning they are lighter riders as a result; a horse's back is far more likely to be damaged by 12 stone of flailing novice flopping around on it than 14 stone of well-controlled Rider!
Dressage is an extremely elitist sport. You have to be rich, have a warmblood, super talented, perfect looking, etc., to be even taken mildly seriously. The rest of us are just playing at it, apparently. This kind of nonsense just gives the super elitist even more ammunition to be super elite. Way to crowd the rest of us out. Guess what, without the other 19 out of 20 riders, you wouldn't have much of a sport.
It's like being back in school again or standing in front of that grizzled cowboy at the TG&Y. The dressage queens and riding school harpies point at me and say "You're too big". Will I ever escape? Probably not. But guess what? I'm going to go ride anyway. And I'd wager that I can ride better than a lot of my smaller counterparts.
