Rider "obesity" makes it on the Beeb

I'm sure that the % guidelines are based on a fit horse at its own optimal weight. They would not be published without addressing overweight horses or the impact on the % when a horse puts on weight to then become overweight.
 
Dukey said:
My sister isn't huge about 12stone and 5 foot.
...

I wouldn't say my sister is too fat
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Dukey, but unless she's pure muscle that's well into the obese range :( http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/healthy-living/Documents/Adult_height_weight_chart_110411.pdf

I'm sorry to pick on your post, but this does illustrate the change in attitudes in this country. Perhaps you could use the incident to encourage your sister to get to a healthy weight? :)

ETA: overweight riders need to think about their own health and wellbeing as well, not just whether the horse can carry them.
 
Well I think I shall take a copy of the article and pin it to my fridge. I have been on a diet and fitness improvement campaign since the beginning of December and it is going the right way though soooo slowly (I know thats the best way, but its frustrating!) I cheated with my horse because he is a big lad so way under his weight capacity but, you know what? it never hurts to keep the focus on what you should be doing and where you should be.
 
I think it TOTALLY RIDICULOUS to say a horse should only carry 10% of its bodyweieght. A large horse (16.2 hunter) weighs roughly 1200lbs. So theyr saying it should have a rider of 120lbs- 8 1/2 stone. Should we all be on Shires or Clydesdales?
(I am 5'4 and 7st 10lbs and I feel happiest on a 15.3hh to 16.1hh)
 
stormox said:
I think it TOTALLY RIDICULOUS to say a horse should only carry 10% of its bodyweieght. A large horse (16.2 hunter) weighs roughly 1200lbs. So theyr saying it should have a rider of 120lbs- 8 1/2 stone. Should we all be on Shires or Clydesdales?
(I am 5'4 and 7st 10lbs and I feel happiest on a 15.3hh to 16.1hh)
Click to expand...

No it's not totally ridiculous. It's true. You cannot argue that 8 1/2 stone is not optimal for a horse of this size. It's not optimal for you perhaps, but it IS in all sense purposes, optimal for the horse. No matter how big the horse is, it would rather not have to carry you over hill and dale.

However, you need to be more realistic and not go for the "OPTIMAL" as it isn't what the average horse carries anyway. 15% is the average and more realistic figure.

In answer to your question about whether we should all be riding clydes and shires... maybe so if we are not willing to put the horse first. Its a harsh reality and one we must face head on and not make excuses behind "other factors" such as breed, bone, conformation, history etc etc.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone has see this? http://www.leeds.ac.uk/safety/handling/documents/appendix/guidelines.pdf

According to that 95% of women are safe to lift 7Kg max from floor to waist height. Over that a detailed risk assessment should be carried out. Putting aside us horsey ladies and our requirements to lift 25Kg bags of feed for one minute, where does that leave the "ordinary" woman with a toddler?

Sometimes one really wonders just how sensible these studies are!
 
I find these threads hard reading. I know I am heavy. At 12.5 stone I was a size 12, always weighed heavier than I look. Last time at my doctors they made me reweigh on 3 different scales as he said they were broken. They weren't, and he couldn't believe my weight
My legs are solid muscle, they don't wobble at all! Excess on me tends to end up on my stomach. I've lost 9kg recently. But am still well over recommended weight for riding schools
I don't get on anything young/weak/fine. My minimum for me is something 16.2 ish and chunky
Am on a tb in my sig that I sat on for about ten mins, aware I am too big for him
 
I agree with what Tally ho! is saying. Of course 10% is optimal for a horse. Of course 10% is going to result in fewer strains, and better performance, why wouldn't it? It is wrong of us to pooh pooh the study because of these findings. However, it is also true, that aiming to be just 10% of a horse's weight is very unrealistic. It would rule out most lightweight horses that many adults ride. Then what would happen to them?

So I think we should be mindful of the survey findings and aim to be as light as possible for our chosen mounts. Aiming to be no more than 15% would be a responsible thing to do IMO.
 
Wagtail said:
I agree with what Tally ho! is saying. Of course 10% is optimal for a horse. Of course 10% is going to result in fewer strains, and better performance, why wouldn't it? It is wrong of us to pooh pooh the study because of these findings. However, it is also true, that aiming to be just 10% of a horse's weight is very unrealistic. It would rule out most lightweight horses that many adults ride. Then what would happen to them?

So I think we should be mindful of the survey findings and aim to be as light as possible for our chosen mounts. Aiming to be no more than 15% would be a responsible thing to do IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree. I am about 10% of my current horse who is apporoaching retirement. People have often commented that I look too small on him and I was considering getting a smaller model next. May need to review that now.
 
We all sound like the spoilt brats we actually are.Yes I know we have an obesity problem BUT two thirds of the world are hungry if not starving.India has a charity to try to ensure that each child has a minimum of 500 calories PER DAY.I sponsor 2 children in Africa. I nominated children in the greatest need and India didn't come into it.Uganda did.One child I sponsored died of malaria because they couldn't afford the nets.We should be thanking God daily on our bended knees that we live where we do and surfeit is our problem and no their animals don't do so good either.
 
Wagtail said:
I agree with what Tally ho! is saying. Of course 10% is optimal for a horse. Of course 10% is going to result in fewer strains, and better performance, why wouldn't it? It is wrong of us to pooh pooh the study because of these findings. However, it is also true, that aiming to be just 10% of a horse's weight is very unrealistic. It would rule out most lightweight horses that many adults ride. Then what would happen to them?

So I think we should be mindful of the survey findings and aim to be as light as possible for our chosen mounts. Aiming to be no more than 15% would be a responsible thing to do IMO.
Click to expand...


Are you aware that the study was done by weigh taping the horses, not a weighbridge and are you aware of the often huge variance between the taped weight and the true weight?

However, what I'm really wondering is who is going to tell the likes of Sir Mark Todd and WFP:D:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
If we all want things to be natural we should just let all of our horses roam free as nature intended! Not sure that nature intenede them to roam through towns etc. but hey ho and the parks should provide some good food shouldn't it? If horses can't do a job for human beings they will only exist in zoos because no one will keep them.Fact.
 
jemima*askin said:
Are you aware that the study was done by weigh taping the horses, not a weighbridge and are you aware of the often huge variance between the taped weight and the true weight?
Click to expand...

What difference would it have made exactly Jemima?

10% of a figure is still 10% of a figure.

For example my weightape is 40kgs "out" calibrated with a weighbridge last time I was at a vet hospital (tendon injury).

The 500kg horse was actually 540kg. So she could have carried 4kg more (going by 10% for simplicity)... whoop-de doo.
 
Well, it shows a startling lack of attention to detail and accuracy from which major conclusions are drawn. It also makes one wonder how they weighed the riders - actual weight, dress size or by asking? Two of those methods are also startlingly inaccurate when checked against the third.

And in the case of two of my horses, going by weightape and by the weighbridge gives a stone different at 10%. Enough to make some of the people who are now panicking that they are now going to be subject to disapproval because they are, say 12% of their horses weight very much happier bunnies:)
 
eahotson said:
If we all want things to be natural we should just let all of our horses roam free as nature intended!
Click to expand...

You say that as if it's a bad thing! :D

I'm sure every equine would leap with joy. Horses with "jobs" are few and far between. Competing, hunting etc is not a "job" in my humble opinion, they are just indulging our desires.

I keep a horse purely for my own pleasure. It doesn't have a "job"... it costs me money and I have to keep it in a box in winter, and keep it in another box-shaped field all summer. I then ride it according to my beliefs to make me happy and maybe win a few rosettes to decorate my wall with. I know, I'm bonkers!!!!

It did not ask to be kept and ridden and fed what I choose for it. I have made it my beast of burden. It must obey me and dance at my command and I intend to make it as easy as possible for her by being a good weight and a balanced weight because... it is my choice and she is my responsibility.
 
Has anyone actually read the original research? I haven't (it's behind a pay wall) but someone I trust has.

It seems pretty shaky to me.

I personally wouldn't bother debating something when the original data is of such poor quality ;)
 
There's a bit about this in this months Horse magazine I think from Dan Sherriff or similar saying no to larger saddles for larger riders on the basis they'd done some research on the optimum weight per inch of the horses back ie the ideal load bearing weight.

He basically said although people are getting bigger a horses back isn't and not to make ever larger and larger saddles.

I agree.
 
I thought the 20% came from studies with endurance horses in the USA - where there are an awful lot more large riders than in the UK. This backs up other studies and the custom from army days when horses were the only means of transport and pack animals - although I suppose the horses were a means to an end and when they could no longer work they were disposed of.

I always think about the weights that racehorses are asked to carry - TBs being asked to jump and gallop and carry 12 stone, including tack. And another good guide is the hunter divisions of lightweight, medium and heavy because they have stood the test of time.

A 15.2 hh horse of reasonable conformation should carry 12 stone easily for jumping and hunting.
 
tallyho! said:
What difference would it have made exactly Jemima?

10% of a figure is still 10% of a figure.

For example my weightape is 40kgs "out" calibrated with a weighbridge last time I was at a vet hospital (tendon injury).

The 500kg horse was actually 540kg. So she could have carried 4kg more (going by 10% for simplicity)... whoop-de doo.
Click to expand...

Seriously, please read it and look at who wrote it, the other stuff she has published previously, the institution she is at etc etc.

And obviously if she weigh taped we can't say anything about weights. All we can say is predicted weights. I agree the lack of attention to detail is not idea.

I know you understand how all this stuff works so I know you can. I'm surprised you don't want the data mocked as a scientist (think that you are anyway?!) as it isn't terribly good science she is doing I don't think.

One of her previous publications was on whether the whorls on a horses skin make it predisposed to stable vices.

I really don't think that her research methods or interests are much cop.

There is also no reference as to where she got 10% from and BEVA seem to have been very non committal about the validity of this data.

ETS: which does not mean I don't think we shouldn't all worry about weight etc when it comes to our horses.

It means I question the validity of this particular study and don't want to use it as a basis of a well balanced article.
 
Last edited:
Erm - anyone else looked at the weights carried by racehorses then? My 15.2hh TB raced over hurdles carrying 12.5st (79kg), she'd be about 450kg at her optimal weight. That means she carried a bit over 17% of her weight during races

Ah I see orangehorse has had same thought as me!
 
Last edited:
unicorndreams said:
Erm - anyone else looked at the weights carried by racehorses then? My 15.2hh TB raced over hurdles carrying 12.5st (79kg), she'd be about 450kg at her optimal weight. That means she carried a bit over 17% of her weight during races
Click to expand...

So?
 
tallyho! said:
You say that as if it's a bad thing! :D

I'm sure every equine would leap with joy. Horses with "jobs" are few and far between. Competing, hunting etc is not a "job" in my humble opinion, they are just indulging our desires.

I keep a horse purely for my own pleasure. It doesn't have a "job"... it costs me money and I have to keep it in a box in winter, and keep it in another box-shaped field all summer. I then ride it according to my beliefs to make me happy and maybe win a few rosettes to decorate my wall with. I know, I'm bonkers!!!!

It did not ask to be kept and ridden and fed what I choose for it. I have made it my beast of burden. It must obey me and dance at my command and I intend to make it as easy as possible for her by being a good weight and a balanced weight because... it is my choice and she is my responsibility.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that most equines would jump for joy actually.Life in the wild is harsh.No suplementary feeding, no vetinary care. lameness which can be a death sentence.The travellers often leave their horses to live naturally only its called abondoment when they do it.How many people would pay the money they do to keep a large animal that is no use to them? Also you know, the lot of animals in Britain OVERALL is pretty good.We do have welfare laws and organization, not perfect I know, but they Re there.Look at the lot of horses and donkeys in the third world.
 
Because I am a mug I bought the abstract. I can't get the full paper so no idea what it says, how good the methods are or who came up with the 10% rule

What it says is 'an industry practitioner' proposes a 10% rider to horse weight ratio for optimal performance. It then says they weigh taped because it is more useful to the lay man (which is true but I would argue it is not good science ) and that 10% is probably completely unrealistic anyway.

So as far as I can tell, the full piece of research has not actually been published (merely the abstract) and so can not be properly peer reviewed. Which personally makes me think it should not be used by the press until it is complete.
 
eahotson said:
I am not sure that most equines would jump for joy actually.Life in the wild is harsh.No suplementary feeding, no vetinary care. lameness which can be a death sentence.The travellers often leave their horses to live naturally only its called abondoment when they do it.How many people would pay the money they do to keep a large animal that is no use to them? Also you know, the lot of animals in Britain OVERALL is pretty good.We do have welfare laws and organization, not perfect I know, but they Re there.Look at the lot of horses and donkeys in the third world.
Click to expand...

I do. Often. But unlike our pleasure animals, they do have a job to do and you only have to look at PFK facebook page to see how hard they work.

I'm glad we don't have to do that. I'm glad we are rich enough to keep horses for pleasure.

I'm not supporting 10% by the way. I've always been a 15% person even before the study. I hope you haven't come to that conclusion. I am however in support of such a study which aims to give a guideline.
 
Jesstickle said:
Because I am a mug I bought the abstract. I can't get the full paper so no idea what it says, how good the methods are or who came up with the 10% rule

What it says is 'an industry practitioner' proposes a 10% rider to horse weight ratio for optimal performance. It then says they weigh taped because it is more useful to the lay man (which is true but I would argue it is not good science ) and that 10% is probably completely unrealistic anyway.

So as far as I can tell, the full piece of research has not actually been published (merely the abstract) and so can not be properly peer reviewed. Which personally makes me think it should not be used by the press until it is complete.
Click to expand...

Quite, and why so many people are panicking that they are not 10% I'm not sure... headless chicken syndrome?
 
tallyho! said:
Quite, and why so many people are panicking that they are not 10% I'm not sure... headless chicken syndrome?
Click to expand...

Because of the way the press have, as always, completely hijacked something. The way the articles read makes it sound like if you are over 10% you are a welfare concern to your horse.
I don't think this study actually says anything of any use whatsoever in deciding if you are too heavy for your horse or not.

Hence my assertions it is best to ignore it! All it says is the percentage of people who are more than 10%, more than 15% and more than 20% and what the percentage of human weight to horse weight was for people with a health BMI

Unless there is somewhere in the full text (not published) a reference to an absolutely amazing piece of data from the 'industry practitioner' on how they proved what is a welfare concern and what isn't I am not terribly interested.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top