Pandering to overweight riders

Our Ardennes mare carried 16 stone (we weighed her rider, tack and luggage) in walk for five hours a day for two weeks. She finished the trip fit and raring to do more. She was only 15.2 but very heavily built. No idea of her weight. When stabled she ate a small bale of hay a day without putting on weight. Could heavier riders offer a viable future for the heavier breeds? Not modern shires with immensely long legs and weak backs but the more compact types. I do not want to offend modern Shires fans but I would not chose one to do hard work with.
 
skinnydipper said:

​

​

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 www.avonvaleequine.co.uk
Click to expand...

The biggest indicator for orthopaedic issues in horses is obesity that’s the horse being obese not the rider .
This can’t be said enough or to often thats before we get to the appalling metabolic diseases that horses face because we let them get too fat.

While it’s interesting to debate rider weight and it appeals to the judgmental side of us and the fact many of us have a less than straight forward relationship with what we eat always may it a topic we think about a lot it’s not near the top of the list for thing causing horses harm .

Top of that list would be horses being significantly overweight especially when they are like that all the time.
Thats the biggest welfare issue in this country it’s not thin neglected horses it’s not horses being ridden by people too heavy for them it’s horses that are too fat ridden and unridden ones.
 
sbloom said:
But a 16.2 drum horse type COULD carry more than a Clydie...it's just that 19 stone is almost certainly too much.

It's all very well saying "if one person decides not to ride" when the other side of the coin is that feeling fat shamed, even if that is not the intention, will make a lot of people, who struggle with their relationship with food, feel worse about themselves, and then they eat more in so many cases. Are they likely to then stop riding their horses because they gained a few more lbs? Some might, but many won't.

I DO think there's an issue here and as I said, I'd probably agree with a competition limit, and general recommendation, of 20% but it's not enforceable for most of the transgressors, who won't be competing. If an approach in reality actually causes more harm to riders' mental and physical health than it causes benefit to horses then we all lose. Instead of, effectively, shouting, why don't we try and work out why people are too heavy for their horses and seek to help them, instead of simply bandying figures around?

HELP them with their relationship with food AND their relationship with their horse, if the horse can be kept healthy then can find other ways to be with their horse, but our horsey culture doesn't encourage that, or educate towards it. I often recommend people towards relationship coaches, to help them bond with their horse, plus groundwork, learning to longline etc. Instead we talk punitative measures as the first step, and we use very blunt language that evidence shows can be very problematic.

Believe whatever you like but much of this conversation will be more harmful than helpful, overall. Until we acknowledge that reality we're banging our heads against a brick wall.
Click to expand...

I hear you and I have a great deal of sympathy with anyone struggling with food, their weight, their mental health. And all of those things are incredibly relevant in our culture and society today. That in itself is interesting and revealing. BUT, there does have to be a place for honesty and really open discussion about horses and the weights they carry. We shouldn't ignore that welfare issue because of social norms that are damaging human individuals in a different way. Horses should not need to take our stuff on. We are living in an age, more generally, where our understanding of both our and other species physical realities are shockingly distanced from our perceptions and assumptions. In some ways the fact that so many people are unhealthily overweight should be a very clear signal that riding on another animal needs thought and at the very least in formal competitive situations, clear guidelines for the welfare of those animals. I hear that at this year's 3 Counties show 6 riders were asked to dismount/leave the arena during ridden competition due to what judges felt was an unhealthy rider/horse weight ratio. That seemed like a good step to me though my neighbour who was present for one of these incidents said the rider/s were actually actively disputing the request in the ring!! It's a personal response but if anyone, at a competition, told me, in the role of judge/official that I didn't appear to conform to a healthy picture with my horse, I would be loading my horse and off the showground quicker than a rat up a drainpipe!! Yes, there would be a sense of shame but also it would provoke real questions about the issue raised. There really should be an easier route for that, if we are to genuinely consider people's mental health in equestrianism and that would be to make a clear ratio of weights that could be verified as part of the standard of competing. That absolutely would filter down to the non-competing riders.

As a rider that is on the edge of the 15% with tack (ranging from 14.5 - 16%) for one of my horses, my saddle fitter advised a M2M saddle that would not only allow me to fit the horse better but could also be lighter. 8 years on from that very relaxed and well handled conversation about height, legs, weight, horse conformation etc I am very grateful for that. As an equestrian, a non-competing one, that has been very helpful in me making sure I know what I should weigh for THAT horse, encouraging me to maintain as light a weight as I can for THAT horse (the struggle is real) and working THAT horse appropriately. With both of the other 2 horses I regularly ride similar conversations have taken place but the issue of my weight has had less bearing because the ratio is 'better' just in terms of my weight. Conformation, leg and body length, workload etc are still really important and differ for each horse. These conversations really can happen without shame, guilt etc being brought into it.

ETA: if the, say 20% ratio was adopted it surely would be SO much easier at vettings etc for a vet, not to comment on the rider/purchaser but to identify what the 20% of weight for that horse should be? That would be helpful and informative at a very early point of purchase/considering a horse surely?
 
Last edited:
I think palo1's suggestion that a vet undertaking a pre-purchase examination should state on the vetting report what the maximum weight the horse in question should carry is using either the 20% or 15% rule (which would need to be determined and agreed on by the RCVS equine specialists) is brilliant.
It would inevitably have implications for insurance as an insurance company would be loath to insure a partnership which didn't conform to the recommendations in the vetting report as overloading a horse may very well increase the likelihood that there will be claims for investigations and treatments for performance-related issues.
Obviously this wouldn't be a clear cut solution as there would be problems regarding who the main rider of the horse in question was as that may be different from the insurer, but I think it would at least bring the issue into the open and give everyone involved in the management of the animals they are involved with opportunity to have due regard to their horse's welfare and an agreed way of measuring and determining it.
This would allow owners, riding school proprietors, people looking for sharers, judges and competition officials a legitimate reason to refuse a particular partnership on insurance grounds without having to justify themselves and avoid the accusation of fat-shaming.
 
palo1 said:
I hear you and I have a great deal of sympathy with anyone struggling with food, their weight, their mental health. And all of those things are incredibly relevant in our culture and society today. That in itself is interesting and revealing. BUT, there does have to be a place for honesty and really open discussion about horses and the weights they carry. We shouldn't ignore that welfare issue because of social norms that are damaging human individuals in a different way. Horses should not need to take our stuff on. We are living in an age, more generally, where our understanding of both our and other species physical realities are shockingly distanced from our perceptions and assumptions. In some ways the fact that so many people are unhealthily overweight should be a very clear signal that riding on another animal needs thought and at the very least in formal competitive situations, clear guidelines for the welfare of those animals. I hear that at this year's 3 Counties show 6 riders were asked to dismount/leave the arena during ridden competition due to what judges felt was an unhealthy rider/horse weight ratio. That seemed like a good step to me though my neighbour who was present for one of these incidents said the rider/s were actually actively disputing the request in the ring!! It's a personal response but if anyone, at a competition, told me, in the role of judge/official that I didn't appear to conform to a healthy picture with my horse, I would be loading my horse and off the showground quicker than a rat up a drainpipe!! Yes, there would be a sense of shame but also it would provoke real questions about the issue raised. There really should be an easier route for that, if we are to genuinely consider people's mental health in equestrianism and that would be to make a clear ratio of weights that could be verified as part of the standard of competing. That absolutely would filter down to the non-competing riders.

As a rider that is on the edge of the 15% with tack (ranging from 14.5 - 16%) for one of my horses, my saddle fitter advised a M2M saddle that would not only allow me to fit the horse better but could also be lighter. 8 years on from that very relaxed and well handled conversation about height, legs, weight, horse conformation etc I am very grateful for that. As an equestrian, a non-competing one, that has been very helpful in me making sure I know what I should weigh for THAT horse, encouraging me to maintain as light a weight as I can for THAT horse (the struggle is real) and working THAT horse appropriately. With both of the other 2 horses I regularly ride similar conversations have taken place but the issue of my weight has had less bearing because the ratio is 'better' just in terms of my weight. Conformation, leg and body length, workload etc are still really important and differ for each horse. These conversations really can happen without shame, guilt etc being brought into it.

ETA: if the, say 20% ratio was adopted it surely would be SO much easier at vettings etc for a vet, not to comment on the rider/purchaser but to identify what the 20% of weight for that horse should be? That would be helpful and informative at a very early point of purchase/considering a horse surely?
Click to expand...

It’s my experience that vets are useless As the rest of us at calculating a horses weight by eye .
So that would mean taking a weigh bridge to every vetting , because guesses have no place on a document that can lead to the vet being sued and guesses would make the advice almost completely useless .

This a very complex issue and the correct max weight for a horse to carry will vary through its life .
Conformation plays a huge role and I have had a light weight 16.1 warmblood who in her prime of life would have carried more weight than some of the so called heavyweights weight carriers with weak back conformation .
That mare had fantastic conformation particularly in her back which was just the perfect optimal shape for a ridden horse . The horses we often consider as weight carriers often have less good conformation to the back and will need to made from youngsters by lighter riders until the back muscle develops through training. Some just have conformation that means any calculation done on the weight of the horse would be meaningless .
These big types of horse need careful choosing as they are often for men who will be the heaviest group choosing these large horses and expecting them to do things like hunting .
I also had a Tb who was up to a fair amount of weight again he had very nice conformation .

Horse weight and rider weight is something that needs to be openly discussed but this is not an easy subject and it’s not with consequences for people if you get it wrong .
Careless comments was the start of my uncomfortable relationship with weight and food .
 
Honestly I think this is a problem that will never be solved because there are so many aspects to this issue. There is no confirmed percentage of a horse’s body weight that is unequivocally deemed acceptable for it to carry without causing damage (I think 15-20% is just basic guidance?). There are so many variables that I think unanimous agreement on what that percentage should be would be impossible to reach.

And once that percentage is confirmed who would enforce it and how?

These days telling the truth and being honest with people is deemed nasty and mean. If you told someone they were too heavy for their horse you’d be accused of fat shaming, damaging their mental health etc. So if people don’t take personal responsibility to ensure they are the correct weight for the horse THEY CHOOSE to ride I cannot see there is a workable solution.

Some people are wilfully ignorant, some genuinely lack the education, some are in denial and some are just plain selfish.

But really it’s all about choice and taking responsibility. And yes I know that some people find it harder to maintain their weight than others and there are all sorts of factors that affect this, but nobody has a god given right to ride a horse just because they want to without thinking of the impact on the horse and making it as least damaging to the horse as it can possibly be.

If you are too heavy for your horse and don’t want to lose weight or can’t lose weight your choice is to not ride or to ride a bigger horse.
 
Goldenstar said:
It’s my experience that vets are useless As the rest of us at calculating a horses weight by eye .
So that would mean taking a weigh bridge to every vetting , because guesses have no place on a document that can lead to the vet being sued and guesses would make the advice almost completely useless .

This a very complex issue and the correct max weight for a horse to carry will vary through its life .
Conformation plays a huge role and I have had a light weight 16.1 warmblood who in her prime of life would have carried more weight than some of the so called heavyweights weight carriers with weak back conformation .
That mare had fantastic conformation particularly in her back which was just the perfect optimal shape for a ridden horse . The horses we often consider as weight carriers often have less good conformation to the back and will need to made from youngsters by lighter riders until the back muscle develops through training. Some just have conformation that means any calculation done on the weight of the horse would be meaningless .
These big types of horse need careful choosing as they are often for men who will be the heaviest group choosing these large horses and expecting them to do things like hunting .
I also had a Tb who was up to a fair amount of weight again he had very nice conformation .

Horse weight and rider weight is something that needs to be openly discussed but this is not an easy subject and it’s not with consequences for people if you get it wrong .
Careless comments was the start of my uncomfortable relationship with weight and food .
Click to expand...

There probably is a way that an easier solution than a weighbridge could be found - if there were motivation and need for that. I agree about the variations in horse capability etc but in the same way that not all drivers are equally skilled, insurance companies do find a way to boundary those variations and risks. The same is true around vehicle towing weights and limits. I am not saying that system is perfect just that if there really were motivation to step towards a more formal idea of healthy horse/rider ratios it could be done. Careless comments really can damage people I know and for me, that is another reason why the issue might be 'better' if it were more formalised and set out in terms of vetting, insurance and competing. Horse riding is a privelege; it's not essential for anyone to get on a horse and there are huge benefits in terms of horsemanship etc in non-ridden work too. Equestrianism wouldn't be shut off to those either temporarily or more permanently too heavy for their horse; it is still accessible but if people really think that sitting on a horse is the only way they can support their mental health that is both fragile and, for me, really limited. I have no intention to hurt or cause offence and I do understand some of the issues - I have taken time off riding to manage my weight and have had to focus on ground work etc, and actually enjoyed that and the reduction in pressure to manage the ridden stuff. That is just my experience of course.
 
There's always the old fashioned formula for measuring a horse's weight. It's probably not as accurate as a weighbridge, but it's still better than guessing by eye. Perhaps vetting options could include a choice between using the formula or having the vet provide a weighbridge.

(Heart girth in inches x heart girth in inches) x body length in inches ÷ 330 = weight in lbs. Multiply the total number of lbs by 0.45359237 to convert to kg.

Edited: Body length is measured from point of shoulder to end of buttocks.
 
Last edited:
That's what I can't get my head around. It shouldn't need "enforced". Why aren't horse owners being considerate of their horse and its welfare. How can they think its ok to put >18st in the saddle.

So no, you can't legislate against selfishness but if there was some sort of rule perhaps they'd feel less comfortable exploiting and compromising their horses.
 
Last edited:
GrassChop said:
Imagine what war horses had to carry with all the armour on top before and in todays times
Click to expand...
Until Henry VIII bred bigger horses, war horses were what we might think of as native ponies today.

This comes from the Metropolitan Museum in New York on the weight of armour
An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—

less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century.
 
TPO said:
That's what I can't get my head around. It shouldn't need "enforced". Why aren't horse owners being considerate of their horse and its welfare. How can they think its ok to put >18st in the saddle.

So no, you can't legislate against selfishness but if there was some sort of rule perhaps they'd feel less comfortable exploiting and compromising their horses.
Click to expand...

I totally agree it shouldn’t need to be enforced and nobody should be in the position of having to tell the owner of a horse (who is the person responsible for it’s welfare) that they are too heavy to ride it. Yet here we are.

I would say there is probably a huge number of owners who have no idea what their horse weighs or what they weigh with tack (or even know about the 15-20%). They are much smaller than the horse so of course the horse can comfortably carry them. Also a huge number of owners who do not question any aspect of welfare because the horse is ‘fine’ (which probably means not obviously lame or injured so I can continue riding it without a care in the world).
 
GrassChop said:
Imagine what war horses had to carry with all the armour on top before and in todays times!
Click to expand...
As Skib has written, usually around 40 - 50lbs, on horses (cobs, really) of 14 - 15hh. War horses, or destriers, were only ridden in battle, they were otherwise led from the knight's or squire's rouncey = riding horse. People were on average about 5'6" - 5'7" and weighed around 9 - 10 stone. Henry VIII was practically a giant at 6' and, in his old age when he no longer rode, probably 15 stone.
 
Last edited:
KittenInTheTree said:
There's always the old fashioned formula for measuring a horse's weight. It's probably not as accurate as a weighbridge, but it's still better than guessing by eye. Perhaps vetting options could include a choice between using the formula or having the vet provide a weighbridge.

(Heart girth x heart girth) x body length ÷ 330 = weight in lbs. Multiply the total number of lbs by 0.45359237 to convert to kg.
Click to expand...
I assume body length is point of shoulder to end of buttocks? My old vet used to measure along the top line and I think that was wrong.
 
Cortez said:
I know that weigh tapes are often a bit inaccurate, but they are better than a guess, educated or otherwise.
Click to expand...
What I've done for every horse is weightaped at the sane time they've been weighed at the RVC so I know that it's consistently under by 25-30kg. I gave away the other one I had which over estimated.
 
KittenInTheTree said:
There's always the old fashioned formula for measuring a horse's weight. It's probably not as accurate as a weighbridge, but it's still better than guessing by eye. Perhaps vetting options could include a choice between using the formula or having the vet provide a weighbridge.

(Heart girth x heart girth) x body length ÷ 330 = weight in lbs. Multiply the total number of lbs by 0.45359237 to convert to kg.

Edited: Body length is measured from point of shoulder to end of buttocks.
Click to expand...

Can I just check that girth and length are inches?



I've been doing some sums and it is quite an eye-opener how much everything weighs. For example, my saddle fully fitted with stirrups etc is far from the heaviest out there and it adds a stone and a half. Winter coat, chaps, exercise sheet (all lightweight) put an extra half-stone on too!
 
KittenInTheTree said:
There's always the old fashioned formula for measuring a horse's weight. It's probably not as accurate as a weighbridge, but it's still better than guessing by eye. Perhaps vetting options could include a choice between using the formula or having the vet provide a weighbridge.

(Heart girth x heart girth) x body length ÷ 330 = weight in lbs. Multiply the total number of lbs by 0.45359237 to convert to kg.

Edited: Body length is measured from point of shoulder to end of buttocks.
Click to expand...

I've got a spreadsheet that I think uses a variation of that however it uses height too. It's locked so I can't see the formulae but I put in height, body length and heart girth in cms and it gives me weight in kg. Came back within 5kg of actual weight on 2 TBs and a warmblood.
 
Don't suppose anyone bothered to record the average life expectancy of a war horse. "It used to be thought ok" isn't a good argument for doing anything at all ever.* I know it's not the same but London hackney cab horses had an average working life of 3 years. Guessing war horses were similar & doubled as a food source when they broke?

@Skib Firemen carry compressed air (oxygen being flammable). A standard breathing apparatus kit weighs 15Kg, then there's PPE & huge boots etc. & then you climb down a ladder carrying someone (or a sand filled dummy, hopefully, if you're training). Do-able if you're fit but totally knackers your knees after a few years.
Point is no one makes you do it.



*Not getting at you, Grasschop, I know that's not what you meant.
 
From a client perspective, where I ride doesn't have a weight limit (in theory - remember chatting about it) as they offer exams and training to certain sectors that would naturally have heavier set or simply heavier people working in. The two yards I worked at had two set weight limits, one 13 stone, one 12stone 7. The latter the boss was very pro weighing everyone before their lessons but it caused a few issues.

For the former, bar the odd adult who used to lie, and in my three years I think we refused one person outright to get on a horse, it was the children that actually posed a bigger problem. When you have to start allocating the 14hh/14.2s, sometimes even bigger that used to do the 'nice lady wot lunches' private lessons to a kid's beginner group because they already weigh upwards of 8stone, not only was it depressing for the horses, but you felt for the kids too, especially if the borrowed body protectors didn't go big enough too. Parents would be in absolute total denial too and I had a few 'why can't my darling ride Snuffles' convos where reality then had to bite.

My experience with RDA and weight limits were the absolute worst, and one of the reasons I walked away. Trying to get 16 stone chaps onto horses just so they could have a 15 minute 'pony ride' will stay with me forever. Yes RDA is for everyone, but within of the means the horses available, and I hope as the next generation takes on RDA groups, this becomes top of the list for welfare. RDA National used to bang on about weight limits all then time, but their advice in reality was somewhat out of touch.
 
Last edited:
Goldie's mum said:
Don't suppose anyone bothered to record the average life expectancy of a war horse. "It used to be thought ok" isn't a good argument for doing anything at all ever.* I know it's not the same but London hackney cab horses had an average working life of 3 years. Guessing war horses were similar & doubled as a food source when they broke?

@Skib Firemen carry compressed air (oxygen being flammable). A standard breathing apparatus kit weighs 15Kg, then there's PPE & huge boots etc. & then you climb down a ladder carrying someone (or a sand filled dummy, hopefully, if you're training). Do-able if you're fit but totally knackers your knees after a few years.
Point is no one makes you do it.



*Not getting at you, Grasschop, I know that's not what you meant.
Click to expand...
Skib said:
Until Henry VIII bred bigger horses, war horses were what we might think of as native ponies today.

This comes from the Metropolitan Museum in New York on the weight of armour
An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—

less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century.
Click to expand...
Cortez said:
As Skib has written, usually around 40 - 50lbs, on horses (cobs, really) of 14 - 15hh. War horses, or destriers, were only ridden in battle, they were otherwise led from the knight's or squire's rouncey = riding horse. People were on average about 5'6" - 5'7" and weighed around 9 - 10 stone. Henry VIII was practically a giant at 6' and, in his old age when he no longer rode, probably 15 stone.
Click to expand...
I guessed that with chainmail and everything on top would have been a lot heavier than today's riding which they obviously thought was okay at the time but I guess there's no knowing the impact it had to the horses.

I guess there was not much point to what I was saying. It was just along the lines of wondering how much horses had to carry throughout all the other times, not just in war but everything else. Not relevant to this thread though really, sorry!
 
catkin said:
Can I just check that girth and length are inches?



I've been doing some sums and it is quite an eye-opener how much everything weighs. For example, my saddle fully fitted with stirrups etc is far from the heaviest out there and it adds a stone and a half. Winter coat, chaps, exercise sheet (all lightweight) put an extra half-stone on too!
Click to expand...
Yes, inches :)
 
GrassChop said:
I guessed that with chainmail and everything on top would have been a lot heavier than today's riding which they obviously thought was okay at the time but I guess there's no knowing the impact it had to the horses.

I guess there was not much point to what I was saying. It was just along the lines of wondering how much horses had to carry throughout all the other times, not just in war but everything else. Not relevant to this thread though really, sorry!
Click to expand...

I think we can make some assumptions from how short horses' lives were. When I first owned, very early in the 1980s it was impossible to insure a horse over the age of 15.

If a horse was not going up the competition ladder, it started to lose value from 10 years onwards, and badly from 13, because of the limited expected number of working years that it had left in it.

I suspect for war horses carrying armour they were pretty much knackered by double figures. Cortez might know a bit more.
.
 
Cortez said:
As Skib has written, usually around 40 - 50lbs, on horses (cobs, really) of 14 - 15hh. War horses, or destriers, were only ridden in battle, they were otherwise led from the knight's or squire's rouncey = riding horse. People were on average about 5'6" - 5'7" and weighed around 9 - 10 stone. Henry VIII was practically a giant at 6' and, in his old age when he no longer rode, probably 15 stone.
Click to expand...
The information I found was that Henry VIII weighed 15 stone in his 20s and 28 when he died however not typical and I don't think anyone was going to tell him he was too heavy

500 years later: Henry VIII, leg ulcers and the course of history - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I did find an article about Cavalry in the Napoleonic wars that suggested the if they weren't killed or injured in service then they expected 10 years plus service from the age of 5.

Current weights for the cavalry seem to be rider up 13 st plus 4 st of kit/tack for ceremonial use. If 15% was decided to be the limit, that would mean you'd need a horse of 720kg, not sure how many actually weigh that.
 
teapot said:
My experience with RDA and weight limits were the absolute worst, and one of the reasons I walked away. Trying to get 16 stone chaps onto horses just so they could have a 15 minute 'pony ride' will stay with me forever. Yes RDA is for everyone, but within of the means the horses available, and I hope as the next generation takes on RDA groups, this becomes top of the list for welfare. RDA National used to bang on about weight limits all then time, but their advice in reality was somewhat out of touch.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why RDAs can't offer driving experiences to people who are too heavy and/or unbalanced to ride?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top