Pandering to overweight riders

[paddy555]

There is a lot of evidence in human medicine that carrying weights and heavy weights at that is good for you. Good for bone density , good for muscle building , good for cardiovascular fitness. Whilst it also does increase wear on tear on some joints, it protects other joints. How many of our children slog to school with more than 20%of their body weight in a rucksack on their back and then proceed to carey it round all day.(my son does i weighed it and him) When i suggested to my son that that was a pretty daft thing to do he shrugged and said he had got in to trouble so often for not having stuff he carried everything round with him… humans are even less designed to carry heavy things on their back than horses (all force goes through every single vertibrae in turn) but they seem to survive and not even moan.

.

as far as books and school goes I disagree. I was of the era when everything was books. I carried heavy books around constantly from home to the bus stop. That was 30m walk each way. I did that at grammar school from 11 to 18. I was the kid who took all books home just in case I needed them. We had satchels in those days. Suffered both at the time and for many years afterwards with neck and shoulder pain. Maybe in the modern times of a perfectly balanced rucksack it may be different but there seem to be a lot of kids around with ruck sacks hung over one shoulder. So my heavy satchel was presumably the equivalent of a heavy unbalanced rider.
I survived, didn't moan but it did hurt and didn't do me any good.

 

[ycbm]

Weight bearing exercise to optimise bone density is not the same as lugging excess body weight around.

So is the impact of the horses leg joints on carrying a heavy rider more akin to doing weight bearing exercise to optimise bone density or carrying excess bodyweight around?

Rates of arthritis being found in horses' legs might suggest the latter.
.

 

[blitznbobs]

as far as books and school goes I disagree. I was of the era when everything was books. I carried heavy books around constantly from home to the bus stop. That was 30m walk each way. I did that at grammar school from 11 to 18. I was the kid who took all books home just in case I needed them. We had satchels in those days. Suffered both at the time and for many years afterwards with neck and shoulder pain. Maybe in the modern times of a perfectly balanced rucksack it may be different but there seem to be a lot of kids around with ruck sacks hung over one shoulder. So my heavy satchel was presumably the equivalent of a heavy unbalanced rider.
I survived, didn't moan but it did hurt and didn't do me any good.

I didnt say it didnt do any harm i just think its strange that this is the norm still

 

[blitznbobs]

So is the impact of the horses leg joints on carrying a heavy rider more akin to doing weight bearing exercise to optimise bone density or carrying excess bodyweight around?

Rates of arthritis being found in horses' legs might suggest the latter.
.

Arthritis and bone density are totally different things

 

[ycbm]

Arthritis and bone density are totally different things

No shit Sherlock

 

[skinnydipper]

Excess weight makes it more likely that a person will develop OA. Would that be different for a horse?

 

[blitznbobs]

Excess weight makes it more likely that a person will develop OA. Would that be different for a horse?

except people develop oa at 40 normally horses dont even live that long

 

[skinnydipper]

...

 

[Cortez]

except people develop oa at 40 normally horses dont even live that long

This really shouldn't have to be said, but you cannot possibly compare horses and humans.

 

[skinnydipper]

​

​

Arthritis​

Being overweight can increase the risk of horses developing early arthritis due to the increased wear and tear on the joints. It can also make arthritis more difficult to treat and manage. Arthritis can cause pain, discomfort and poor performance, and it can affect a horse’s quality of life if they are unable to move, lie down and get up comfortably.

Equine Obesity: How It Impacts Welfare

Equine obesity is a growing problem, and it has serious ramifications for horse welfare. Learn more about why obesity is detrimental to horse welfare.

www.avonvaleequine.co.uk

 

[ycbm]

This really shouldn't have to be said, but you cannot possibly compare horses and humans.

You haven't seen an hour old human stand up and run around? Where have you been ?

 

[DabDab]

I agree that education about the issues around horses being asked to carry us at all needs further work. SB will have realised by now that I'm as hot on strengthening the shoulder cradle and recognising a weak top line as she is.

But my experience is that in all sorts of walks of life most people like a hard and fast rule. I believe it would be a major step forward in horse welfare of there was a widely known and widely repeated rule -

"No horse of any shape, age, fitness or training should be asked to carry more than xx% of their own 3/5 body score weight. "

For starters, I'd settle for that xx being 20 but I believe that's too high for sitting on the flat (or worse, dipping) bridge of a horse's spine.
.

Oh absolutely, and like I've said, I think a firm rule in competitive environments is needed. I just don't think that the discussion should end there.

 

[ponynutz]

Ngl carrying all my books, folders, lunch etc around all day made my back ache like crazy, I don't miss it at all (thank god university is all online) - if that's what our horses feel like after carrying someone too heavy then I feel for the poor things.

 

[blitznbobs]

This really shouldn't have to be said, but you cannot possibly compare horses and humans.

Why not? Their bone structure is very similar their muscle fibres are similar and act in a similar way? The major differences are brain development and our orientation but that actually puts humans in a worse position biometrically .. mammals are in fact all very similar

 

[Cortez]

Why not? Their bone structure is very similar their muscle fibres are similar and act in a similar way? The major differences are brain development and our orientation but that actually puts humans in a worse position biometrically .. mammals are in fact all very similar

Why not? Because horses are heavier, stronger, move in fundamentally different ways, have massively different musculature, diets, dentition, metabolism, use themselves in radically different ways, have shorter lifespans, etc., etc. Simply not an argument that works in any way.

 

[Rowreach]

Ref sbloom's point about structure, posture, conditioning, weight distribution for the 'grey' areas...2 x 15kg sacks of feed is approximately 48% of my weight. I can carry one on each shoulder for some distance, I could probably walk around steadily for 10-15mins loaded up like that. If I was to carry those two stacks of feed one on top of another in my arms in front of me then i would struggle to take one step. And if I changed those sacks of feed for rectangular bales of something like hay or shavings and carry them on my shoulders then I can practically skip about.

Why? Because on my shoulders they are positioned over my centre of gravity on a structural part of my anatomy, and because of lowered moments (that's mechanics moments) in play. Sometimes I read this type of thread on here and it's like most people stopped listening in school after someone explained gravity to them, like that is the only force that exists in our world.

So yes, weight is weight, but it interacts with a bunch load of other stuff on the way to the final effect, particularly where you've got multiple dynamic systems interacting with each other.

And I actually see no reason why a more sensible and reality/science-based general conversation around those different factors can't be had while also saying that there a point at which overloading is just overloading whichever way you slice it and therefore an upper rider weight limit applies (I don't necessarily agree that a % of horse weight is the right way to do that though).

Thank goodness for a sensible post.

 

[ycbm]

There are ways to make things feel easier to carry. There are ways to make horses feel humans are easier to carry.

It doesn't make much difference to the amount of weight going down through the leg joints though, does it?
.

 

[Flame_]

That is just your opinion. People are different.

I'd much rather, and it would be much more effective for me, if someone came out and told me directly (but not unkindly) if I was too heavy for a horse. I don't do fannying around, I simply don't get that game, and I'm not alone in that.

I think you'd call BS, reassess your opinion of said person, conclude that it turns out they're a d!ckhead no longer worth paying attention to and move on with your life doing what you like with your horse.

Maybe I'm wrong but I reckon most people would go this way really in response to being told this. ETA Except for maybe a few fragile, vulnerable people who might go away, develop an eating disorder and never get on a horse again in case someone else judges them so critically.

 

[stangs]

There are ways to make things feel easier to carry. There are ways to make horses feel humans are easier to carry.

It doesn't make much difference to the amount of weight going down through the leg joints though, does it?
.

Get yourself a full rucksack, let’s say weighing 10kg. Do a hike with it one day with none of the straps done up. Then do the same hike, with the same pack, a week later but with lifter and stabiliser straps done up.

You will very quickly realise that the effect on your joints is dramatically different. The mass of the pack is the same, but the force exerted on you isn’t, for various reasons. E.g., you can utilise the momentum of your movement to help with the carrying. More stabilised pack also means less effort fighting against it to stabilise yourself, less compensation, etc, all which have a consequence on your joints.

The first hike would leave me with shattered and painful knees that take days to recover; the second hike would leave me comparatively fresh as a daisy.

So no, weight being equal doesn’t mean the overall force exerted on your joints is equal. There are other forces in this world, and their effect is also going to differ depending on the discipline/movement.

 

[ponynutz]

I think you'd call BS, reassess your opinion of said person, conclude that it turns out they're a d!ckhead no longer worth paying attention to and move on with your life doing what you like with your horse.

Maybe I'm wrong but I reckon most people would go this way really in response to being told this. ETA Except for maybe a few fragile, vulnerable people who might go away, develop an eating disorder and never get on a horse again in case someone else judges them so critically.

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with this. I’d be more likely to listen if it was coming from a professional or a friend and, yes, I’d probably think “I wouldn’t have said that to a stranger, that’s a bit rude” but I’d still take a step back and ask whether they were right. I certainly wouldn’t think they were a dickhead, only a concerned passerby. (If I was obviously within the weight limit I might think otherwise but if I wasn’t…)

 

[SO1]

The difference between your son and a horse is that I expect he doesn't run or jump wearing his rucksack.

Also humans if sensible start off with lifting small weights and gradually build them up gently. Carrying heavy weight when you are not strong or fit enough to do so could cause damage and most people won't want to carry a heavy weight a long distance and run and jump with it. Horse are often not conditioned that way they don't start with a light rider and then gradually start building up to carry more weight.

There is a lot of evidence in human medicine that carrying weights and heavy weights at that is good for you. Good for bone density , good for muscle building , good for cardiovascular fitness. Whilst it also does increase wear on tear on some joints, it protects other joints. How many of our children slog to school with more than 20%of their body weight in a rucksack on their back and then proceed to carey it round all day.(my son does i weighed it and him) When i suggested to my son that that was a pretty daft thing to do he shrugged and said he had got in to trouble so often for not having stuff he carried everything round with him… humans are even less designed to carry heavy things on their back than horses (all force goes through every single vertibrae in turn) but they seem to survive and not even moan.

I am not saying that it is great for a big fat rider to ride a little tiny horse but we need a lot more evidence before sweeping statements are made… it is like the argument of not riding til the horse is six… because they are still growing - i had a long chat to my vet a couple of weeks ago because i was thinking of backing my 17.2 3 year old theevidence is now coming out that leaving them til they are 6 gices no chance for their tendons to truly toughen up and leads to weakness in and of itself. The true answer is there is not enough research and the research done is done by 1) people with a serious agenda and 2) in small local numbers.

And everything else is just opinion… sometimes what is ‘obvious’ is correct and sometimes it is completely wrong.

 

[scats]

This talk of humans wearing rucksacks on one shoulder and holding sacks on heads etc is all well and good, but the reality is we stick our weight on one fairly limited area of a horse, so making comparisons to how a human carries weight isn’t particularly relevant. Yes we can alter to some extent how that weight on a horses back is distributed but it’s still weight across a relatively small area.
Regardless of how perfectly balanced we ride and how well fitting our tack is, a horse is going to find it a lot easier with a balanced 9 stone person on its back than a balanced 15 stone one.

The problem is that when we start saying “oh it’s ok that you’re over 20% of the horses weight because you ride in balance and your saddle fits” we find ourselves in an even more difficult place to police.
It’s far easier to make more instant improvements to horse welfare by following a weight rule than a ‘who rides in the best balance or has the best fitting saddle’ rule.

 

[ycbm]

Get yourself a full rucksack, let’s say weighing 10kg. Do a hike with it one day with none of the straps done up. Then do the same hike, with the same pack, a week later but with lifter and stabiliser straps done up.

You will very quickly realise that the effect on your joints is dramatically different. The mass of the pack is the same, but the force exerted on you isn’t, for various reasons. E.g., you can utilise the momentum of your movement to help with the carrying. More stabilised pack also means less effort fighting against it to stabilise yourself, less compensation, etc, all which have a consequence on your joints.

The first hike would leave me with shattered and painful knees that take days to recover; the second hike would leave me comparatively fresh as a daisy.

So no, weight being equal doesn’t mean the overall force exerted on your joints is equal. There are other forces in this world, and their effect is also going to differ depending on the discipline/movement.

I don't accept the comparison with a human to the extent that you claim it. A human is upright and the distribution of the weight is going to have a huge effect on a far less stable 2 legged being than an inherently more stable 4 legged one. Humans cannot sleep standing up.

When a person sits on a horse they are sitting somewhere between the front and back legs on a bridge of spine joining the two, and the weight the horse is carrying is going to go down through those legs somewhere no matter what the precise position the rider sits in is.

It's surely indisputable that a good rider and/or well placed rider is going to make things easier for the horse? And also that the more weight the rider is carrying, the more damage is likely to be done to the horse? We also seem at times to have a concensus that there should be a top weight.

It's been suggested that top weight should not be expressed as a % of the horse's bodyweight, but it's difficult to see how else it could be easily expressed and no alternative has been offered.

I'm mystified what is actually being argued here. That there should be an individual assessment of each horse and rider combination and a number of factors assessed to determine whether that horse and rider combination are acceptable?

That's what we're ALL arguing.

Only some of us are saying that 15/20% is the top and any adjustment should be down from that, on factors such as rider ability, rider placement, horse age, horse fitness, horse conformation etc. The rest don't seem to believe it should work maximum-minus in that way, raising the question of whether they do or don't believe in a top weight rule.

Other than having or not having a hard and fast top weight rule, i can't see what's actually being disagreed with here.
.

 

[stangs]

@ycbm

No it’s not a good comparison but I wasn’t arguing about the anatomical similarities. I was just trying to use a relatable example to explain why your post 377 is factually wrong. This is pretty simple mechanics/physics.

And if you were to ask me why other forces matter(!), then I still think they’re relevant to the discussion of how this percent rule may need to vary between disciplines because the speeds and directions they’re working at differ. As per my post #180, all the research on the effect of varying rider weight has been conducted with horses doing very simple flatwork. So it’s absurd to extrapolate from that than 20% is acceptable for SJ or polo, for example; we may well need even lower weight limits to truly protect horses in these disciplines.

 

[ycbm]

As I suspected, we are in violent agreement
.

 

[stangs]

As I suspected, we are in violent agreement
.

See, I personally violently disagree yours and several others posters’ treatment of mechanics and the use of the “but 20%!” approach to anyone who doesn’t state 10 times in their post that they agree with it and just wanted to add more to the conversation. I am also mourning my beloved nuance.

But otherwise, we’re in agreement.

 

[ycbm]

See, I personally violently disagree yours and several others posters’ treatment of mechanics and the use of the “but 20%!” approach to anyone who doesn’t state 10 times in their post that they agree with it and just wanted to add more to the conversation. I am also mourning my beloved nuance.

But otherwise, we’re in agreement.

You've been reading a different thread to me.

 

[sbloom]

Maybe in the modern times of a perfectly balanced rucksack it may be different but there seem to be a lot of kids around with ruck sacks hung over one shoulder. So my heavy satchel was presumably the equivalent of a heavy unbalanced rider.

Absolutely and central to the points I'm making.

So is the impact of the horses leg joints on carrying a heavy rider more akin to doing weight bearing exercise to optimise bone density or carrying excess bodyweight around?

Rates of arthritis being found in horses' legs might suggest the latter.
.

There are ways to make things feel easier to carry. There are ways to make horses feel humans are easier to carry.

It doesn't make much difference to the amount of weight going down through the leg joints though, does it?
.

Only if extra weight directly causes the issues, rather than damage resulting from dysfunction caused by the horse's change in movement patterns to compensate for excess weight. These things ARE different, one can be mitigated against, the other cannot.

Also humans if sensible start off with lifting small weights and gradually build them up gently. Carrying heavy weight when you are not strong or fit enough to do so could cause damage and most people won't want to carry a heavy weight a long distance and run and jump with it. Horse are often not conditioned that way they don't start with a light rider and then gradually start building up to carry more weight

Yep, let's focus on how we train our horses and make it easier for them to carry riders of all weights....less likely to be moving in dysfunction whatever the rider weight.

Other than having or not having a hard and fast top weight rule, i can't see what's actually being disagreed with here.
.

We all agree on a lot but not everything.

If we believe weight on its own is a direct problem which cannot be mitigated then a low % limit is indicated and people are less likely to look further than that. As human behaviour so oftens shows they could well feel they have carte blanche as they're an appropriate weight. Simple black and white rules for complex issues get is in trouble all the time.

If we believe that weight is harmful only at the point at which it causes dysfunction in movement, and the heavier the rider the more likely they are to cause dysfunction BUT it is possible to mitigate through riding, saddle fitting and/or training then we have a different discussion. We are more likely to set an absolute weight limit higher and to encourage better training and saddle fitting, which would benefit all horses.

And yes, I'm currently on the side of those who say progressive loading of young horses is a good thing, but it needs to be alongside that better understanding of functional movement. Then we get bone density and soft tissue strength alongside correct movement patterns, a massive win.

 

[Peglo]

FWIW I’ve found this a really interesting and informative debate. It sometimes goes round in circles a bit but each time new points are made and think it’s important to have these discussions.

 

[rabatsa]

Someone mentioned Drum horses. How much weight are the cavalry drum horses expected to carry? OK they do not do a lot of fast work with this weight but can carry it for several hours at a stretch on official duties. Most seem to live a long life.