Rider size limits enforced as part of new welfare rules

[skinnydipper]

Rider size limits enforced as part of new welfare rules - Horse & Hound

Retraining of Racehorses (RoR) has launched a “refreshed welfare framework” for competitions and events including its championships this week – including more active enforcement of rider size limits. The charity for former racehorses published its new welfare rules and guidance on 1 August...

www.horseandhound.co.uk

 

[Gamebird]

Except they're not! Nothing is being enforced at the Championships this year - all weighing is voluntary. However judges will be able to stop you if they think your weight is having a detrimental effect on your horse. Hopefully next year it will be mandatory to pass the % test...

I would also like to know what they are going to do with people who fall into the slightly fluffy 17-20% buffer zone. They state 'not ideal', but it does sound like it will be allowed to compete in this zone.

I am very much in favour of this as I see far too many people that are overweight for their TBs, including at the Championships last year. I need to check myself when I next get a chance to weigh my horse! I am tall, so relatively heavy, and would definitely like to confirm my %.

 

[millitiger]

Great start.
If we can begin to normalise scales and thinking about weight and the idea you *might* be pulled up, I think we'll be moving to a better place.

Hopefully other organisations and societies will follow suit.

 

[palo1]

Except they're not! Nothing is being enforced at the Championships this year - all weighing is voluntary. However judges will be able to stop you if they think your weight is having a detrimental effect on your horse. Hopefully next year it will be mandatory to pass the % test...

I would also like to know what they are going to do with people who fall into the slightly fluffy 17-20% buffer zone. They state 'not ideal', but it does sound like it will be allowed to compete in this zone.

I am very much in favour of this as I see far too many people that are overweight for their TBs, including at the Championships last year. I need to check myself when I next get a chance to weigh my horse! I am tall, so relatively heavy, and would definitely like to confirm my %.

I think it is good that they are doing it like this as not only does it really clarify the need for this and the intention to move forwards but will give everyone time to prepare for potentially compulsory certification. Those who certificate this year will be motivators for others who are not feeling so confident.

 

[ihatework]

Super!

 

[MoodyFox_13]

I think if people learned how to not fall onto their horses backs and sore them many would learn plenty of horses are perfectly comfortable and capable of long term carrying up to 30%. 20% is fine and reasonable for a weaker/unbalanced rider but studies are showing a for horse with well fitted tack and a balanced rider can carry up to 30% comfortably long term. Pony types especially were bred for carrying weight on long hauls. But more recent studies are showing there’s a lot of factors and it’s not cut and dry how to determine what a comfortable weight limit is and it’s very horse dependent, rider dependent and tack dependent.

 

[Dave's Mam]

I think if people learned how to not fall onto their horses backs and sore them many would learn plenty of horses are perfectly comfortable and capable of long term carrying up to 30%. 20% is fine and reasonable for a weaker/unbalanced rider but studies are showing a for horse with well fitted tack and a balanced rider can carry up to 30% comfortably long term. Pony types especially were bred for carrying weight on long hauls. But more recent studies are showing there’s a lot of factors and it’s not cut and dry how to determine what a comfortable weight limit is and it’s very horse dependent, rider dependent and tack dependent.

Weight is weight & just because we used to doesn't mean we should. We know better now.

 

[MoodyFox_13]

Weight is weight & just because we used to doesn't mean we should. We know better now.

We’ve done research now and no weight is not weight. Sloshing around unbalanced weight is way harder to carry than balanced weight that moves with you. If something is 10kg but awkward it’s much harder to carry than 20kg is.

 

[Dave's Mam]

We’ve done research now and no weight is not weight. Sloshing around unbalanced weight is way harder to carry than balanced weight that moves with you. If something is 10kg but awkward it’s much harder to carry than 20kg is.

Yes, sloshing about 10 stone is worse, but stable & balanced 10 stone is still 10 stone.

 

[MoodyFox_13]

Yes, sloshing about 10 stone is worse, but stable & balanced 10 stone is still 10 stone.

Carrying a full water bucket is harder than a hay bale 4x its weight. This is one aspect that I just really do not agree with the British on. The fatphobia is rampant and instead of looking at actual research people would rather act like a horses back will break if you weigh more than 9stones

 

[Dave's Mam]

Carrying a full water bucket is harder than a hay bale 4x its weight. This is one aspect that I just really do not agree with the British on. The fatphobia is rampant and instead of looking at actual research people would rather act like a horses back will break if you weigh more than 9stones

What "actual research" are you looking at?

 

[Muddy unicorn]

Saying that carrying excess weight isn’t good for human or equine health isn’t displaying an irrational fear (phobia) of fat, it’s just the truth … 30% of 550kg (average highland pony weight) would be be more than 24 stone …

 

[Dave's Mam]

Carrying a full water bucket is harder than a hay bale 4x its weight. This is one aspect that I just really do not agree with the British on. The fatphobia is rampant and instead of looking at actual research people would rather act like a horses back will break if you weigh more than 9stones

So, I'm going to assume that people's feelings are more important than horse welfare to you?
We need to advocate for the horse. People's feelings are not the first consideration.

 

[ozpoz]

Absolute nonsense, 30%! Is this the Japanese study where the horse was staggering (but still upright)?
Please, let’s all take a step forward into equine welfare and lose the “all about me” blinkers.
It is a privilege to ride a horse and a responsibility to make sure they can carry you and a saddle that fits both horse and rider, without discomfort. Looking at the horse’s expression carrying a rider who isn’t a good fit will tell you a lot.

 

[Beausmate]

I think if people learned how to not fall onto their horses backs and sore them many would learn plenty of horses are perfectly comfortable and capable of long term carrying up to 30%. 20% is fine and reasonable for a weaker/unbalanced rider but studies are showing a for horse with well fitted tack and a balanced rider can carry up to 30% comfortably long term. Pony types especially were bred for carrying weight on long hauls. But more recent studies are showing there’s a lot of factors and it’s not cut and dry how to determine what a comfortable weight limit is and it’s very horse dependent, rider dependent and tack dependent.

30% would mean my lightweight, flat-bred thoroughbred should be ok lugging 22 stone around. Er, no. Horses are actually not meant to carry things on their backs, other than mares supporting stallions while they briefly do their thing, and carting a hungry predator while desperately trying to get rid of it. Lugging a human's lardy arse around, isn't what they were built for.

 

[Cragrat]

I do think the ROR re-issued guidelines are a great idea. They have made it non-compulsory for the championships this year, purely becuase there wasn't a clamp down during the qualifying period. I gather things will get more strict now.

Weight guidelines which are arbitary numbers are necessary to replace the too often lacking good horsemanship and common sense. People STILL have to be aware of the correct and healthy wieght of their horse, and I like that the ROR certificate includes condition scoring. Too many people seem to think that if their obese cob wieghs 600kg, it can easily carry another 120kg, rather than the more correct 600-500*20% =100kg MAX.

The Sue Dyson study bothers me. If she was so desperate to do the study that she faked a letter to get permission, it makes me wondder if her judgement/ assesment of results was entirely objective

Horse and rider fitness must surely be a huge factor in weight carrying ability. I do get that 60kg is 60kg, but how that weight behaves defitinitley has an effect, as does the strength, cardiovascular fitness and muscle/fat ratio of the horse. 500kg muscled can surely carry more that 500kg flabby and fat. This is where the horsemanship and a common sense come in to play.

Here's a different study - only 8 horses, but food for thought....

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0737080607004133

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.

 

[Cragrat]

I've found the write uo of the Tevis Cup data. I find this fascinating because there is no subjectivity - it is purely data and results, of a relatively large number of properly fit horses:

https://www.taunusreiter.de/The1995-1996TevisWeightStudy.pdf

Three hundred sixty horses, primarily of Arabian breeding ranging from 5-22 years and bodycondition scores from 1.5 to 5.5 (1 to 9 scale as described by Henneke 1985), participated in oneof two 160-km endurance races over the same course in August 1995 and July 1996. Conditionscore, cannon bone circumference, combined rider and tack weight, heart girth and body lengthwere measured 11-18 hours prior to the start of the event and body weight estimated according tothe formula by Carroll and Huntington (1988). A rider weight ratio was calculated as a ratio ofrider weight divided by horse body weight. Rider weight and rider weight ratio had no effect onoverall completion rates among all horses (p>0.05). Among horses successfully completing thecourse, rider weight and rider weight ratio had no effect on finish time or placing (p>.05).Among horses who were eliminated, rider weight and rider weight ratio had no effect on milescompleted before failure (p>.05). Condition scores had a significant effect on completion rate(p<.001). Miles successfully completed increased 19.88 miles for each incremental increase of 1in condition score (p<.001). Within the group of unsuccessful horses, there was a significantdifference in condition score between horses who failed due to metabolic and non-metabolicfactors (p<.001). It was concluded that condition score is a more important factor in enduranceperformance than has been previously believed, and that condition score is a more importantfactor than is the weight of the rider, or the rider weight in relation to the weight of the mount.

 

[Nocturnal]

Carrying a full water bucket is harder than a hay bale 4x its weight. This is one aspect that I just really do not agree with the British on. The fatphobia is rampant and instead of looking at actual research people would rather act like a horses back will break if you weigh more than 9stones

That’s nonsense really. Horses are sentient animals not machines, riding them when you exceed 20% of their weight is pure selfishness and entitlement imo.

 

[maya2008]

In real life, the amount of weight any animal (humans included) can carry would include:
- build
- height
- age (old and young carry less)
- fitness and conditioning to carry that weight (my husband used to be able to carry half a cow from the delivery truck through the shop and into the fridge - weighed more than he did but he had the muscle to do it. I couldn’t lift a full water container at the beginning of this summer. My 12 year old son could. I practised through necessity and now can. I haven’t got any heavier but I have put on muscle.)

No one has done research looking at breed, fitness etc. We know some breeds were bred to carry weight (Highland for example) and some absolutely have not been (TB) but currently treat all equally.

My old TB visibly struggled to carry the same weight our old 13.2hh NF would merrily bomb around the countryside with. Build is most assuredly a thing!

 

[scats]

Carrying a full water bucket is harder than a hay bale 4x its weight. This is one aspect that I just really do not agree with the British on. The fatphobia is rampant and instead of looking at actual research people would rather act like a horses back will break if you weigh more than 9stones

It’s got nothing to do with ‘fatphobia’. It’s to do with horse welfare. Yes 15 stone of stable weight is going to be more balanced and easier for a horse to carry than 15 stone of unstable weight… but it’s still 15 stone.

When are humans going to start realising that their own feelings should not come before the welfare of animals?

 

[Floofball]

I've found the write uo of the Tevis Cup data. I find this fascinating because there is no subjectivity - it is purely data and results, of a relatively large number of properly fit horses:

https://www.taunusreiter.de/The1995-1996TevisWeightStudy.pdf

Three hundred sixty horses, primarily of Arabian breeding ranging from 5-22 years and bodycondition scores from 1.5 to 5.5 (1 to 9 scale as described by Henneke 1985), participated in oneof two 160-km endurance races over the same course in August 1995 and July 1996. Conditionscore, cannon bone circumference, combined rider and tack weight, heart girth and body lengthwere measured 11-18 hours prior to the start of the event and body weight estimated according tothe formula by Carroll and Huntington (1988). A rider weight ratio was calculated as a ratio ofrider weight divided by horse body weight. Rider weight and rider weight ratio had no effect onoverall completion rates among all horses (p>0.05). Among horses successfully completing thecourse, rider weight and rider weight ratio had no effect on finish time or placing (p>.05).Among horses who were eliminated, rider weight and rider weight ratio had no effect on milescompleted before failure (p>.05). Condition scores had a significant effect on completion rate(p<.001). Miles successfully completed increased 19.88 miles for each incremental increase of 1in condition score (p<.001). Within the group of unsuccessful horses, there was a significantdifference in condition score between horses who failed due to metabolic and non-metabolicfactors (p<.001). It was concluded that condition score is a more important factor in enduranceperformance than has been previously believed, and that condition score is a more importantfactor than is the weight of the rider, or the rider weight in relation to the weight of the mount.

Thanks for posting that, very interesting read
I was surprised the best/optimum body condition score for completion was 5 (from 1-9) yet a 5.5 body score had a very low completion rate - its a fine line for fitness! Also, I know that endurance horses are super fit but didn’t realise they competed at such low horse weights with body scores from 1.5! (Think neglect/rescue cases) Hopefully these results will show competitors that having a super skinny horse isn’t an advantage. Also interesting that there was no correlation between horse conformation i.e. canon bone width, and weight carrying capabilities

 

[Cloball]

@Cragrat thank you very interesting I think I had skimmed that tevis research and I agree I have issues with the Dyson paper.

I do feel that a lot of the research into this is seriously flawed.... That doesn't mean I think horses can happily carry 30% of their body weight or that the studies are interesting but they are quoted as gospel when the purely statistical power doesn't hold in order to make those claims. What we really need is better bigger research. The Dyson paper is a pilot study at best.

The body condition is interesting I wonder if it is similar to patients in ICU doing better when heavier and older patients having better outcomes when slightly overweight during prolonged illness ... Up to a point which I can't remember accurately. In essence when under extreme physiology duress ie. Illness or and endurance event you need a bit of extra in reserve as it becomes impossible to keep up with your own calorie requirements.

It has become difficult to argue with the research to the above conclusion without getting lumped into the very obvious poor welfare especially as a pony squisher ( who religiously weighs herself and tack and reads the research).

 

[Cloball]

@Floofball I would hypothesis that the variation of cannon bone within the population of horses doing the tevis would not vary enough to be able to make a statistical difference?? I will take a harder look.
"Cannon bone circumference
Mean cannon bone circumference measurements ± standard deviation among Group S and
Group U were 18.83 ±.66 cm and 18.88 ± .66 cm, respectively. Among Group U, mean cannon
bone circumferences among those pulled for lameness and those disqualified due to metabolic
factors were 18.85 ± .67 cm and 18.75 ± .71 cm, respectively. Cannon bone circumference had
no effect on completion rates among all horses, or on miles completed before elimination in
Group U (p>0.05)."

The cannon bone width only varied very slightly as most of the horses were Arab/Arab types so I think it would be difficult to draw too much of a conclusion from that what do you think?

 

[Reacher]

We’ve done research now and no weight is not weight. Sloshing around unbalanced weight is way harder to carry than balanced weight that moves with you. If something is 10kg but awkward it’s much harder to carry than 20kg is.

Can you point us to peer reviewed research please . I’d be especially interested in the long term effect on soundness

 

[ycbm]

studies are showing a for horse with well fitted tack and a balanced rider can carry up to 30% comfortably long term.

Where?

 

[stangs]

20% is fine and reasonable for a weaker/unbalanced rider but studies are showing a for horse with well fitted tack and a balanced rider can carry up to 30% comfortably long term.

I'm another one that would like to see this research.

I had a good look through the literature a couple years back (and summarise the articles I found here) and definitely did not find anything supporting what you say. Nor would I expect to. Given that the literature is currently focused on preliminary results, to do with the objective physiological effects on the horse from the rider's weight at the time of riding, I can't imagine any article making conclusions regarding what the long term effect of weight would be, at this time anyway.

 

[poacher82]

Weight guidelines which are arbitary numbers are necessary to replace the too often lacking good horsemanship and common sense. People STILL have to be aware of the correct and healthy wieght of their horse, and I like that the ROR certificate includes condition scoring. Too many people seem to think that if their obese cob wieghs 600kg, it can easily carry another 120kg, rather than the more correct 600-500*20% =100kg MAX.

Too true Cragrat! The other thing people seem to forget is that not only do you have to calculate your 15-20% of the horse's ideal weight rather than actual weight, but that an obese horse is already using up the rider weight allowance with it's own extra load.

So 'ideal 500kg' horse that weighs 600kg is already carrying a 20% load 24/7. That means if we're going on 20% max rider(&tack) weight then the rider can weigh, erm, 0kg... it shouldn't be ridden!

An 'ideal 500kg' horse that weighs 550kg is already carrying 10%, leaving only 10% for rider. Allowing 10kg for tack etc (which is probably a bit light), that's only a 40kg rider, which must be child-sized! It's SO important that we don't overload our horses with lard, and sadly is not unusual to find horses 50kg overweight.

 

[Abacus]

Too true Cragrat! The other thing people seem to forget is that not only do you have to calculate your 15-20% of the horse's ideal weight rather than actual weight, but that an obese horse is already using up the rider weight allowance with it's own extra load.

So 'ideal 500kg' horse that weighs 600kg is already carrying a 20% load 24/7. That means if we're going on 20% max rider(&tack) weight then the rider can weigh, erm, 0kg... it shouldn't be ridden!

An 'ideal 500kg' horse that weighs 550kg is already carrying 10%, leaving only 10% for rider. Allowing 10kg for tack etc (which is probably a bit light), that's only a 40kg rider, which must be child-sized! It's SO important that we don't overload our horses with lard, and sadly is not unusual to find horses 50kg overweight.

I'd be interested to know if excess horse weight is exactly equal in impact to rider weight. Using your example, if a 500kg horse is 100kg overweight, is that as difficult and impactful as carrying 100kg of rider? I would be inclined to say not due to the wider distribution of that weight, also possibly because an overweight horse might have developed muscle to carry itself all the time, whereas a rider is only on for a brief period of each day.

No evidence that I know of to support this except that I believe it is recognised in racing circles that having to carry extra lead (dead) weight to make up to 12 stone or whatever is harder on the horse than a heavier but balanced rider without the lead. And before anyone gets cross, I am not saying for a moment that overweight horses are ok and can still carry a rider in addition to their own weight.

 

[palo1]

I think if people learned how to not fall onto their horses backs and sore them many would learn plenty of horses are perfectly comfortable and capable of long term carrying up to 30%. 20% is fine and reasonable for a weaker/unbalanced rider but studies are showing a for horse with well fitted tack and a balanced rider can carry up to 30% comfortably long term. Pony types especially were bred for carrying weight on long hauls. But more recent studies are showing there’s a lot of factors and it’s not cut and dry how to determine what a comfortable weight limit is and it’s very horse dependent, rider dependent and tack dependent.

Even if there was research to fully evidence that 20% was fine and even up to 30% on a strong, well conditioned horse was acceptable, why on earth would any rider want to use that 'allowance' when we can clearly understand that horses are simply not designed to carry weight on their backs? That is surely unjustified? Not only that but at those ratios of weight carrying we can often see a visual mismatch between horse and rider which is simply unattractive at the very least. In the 21st century there can be no reason for a horse to be needed for that. I think every equestrian has a duty to pursue an ethical approach and that surely includes being as light as possible for the horses we choose to ride? And we should always aim to choose suitable, healthy horses or avoid riding at all. I can't see that riders at 20 or 30% of the horse's healthy bodyweight can gain anything at all from that...

 

[TheMule]

Even if there was research to fully evidence that 20% was fine and even up to 30% on a strong, well conditioned horse was acceptable, why on earth would any rider want to use that 'allowance' when we can clearly understand that horses are simply not designed to carry weight on their backs? That is surely unjustified? Not only that but at those ratios of weight carrying we can often see a visual mismatch between horse and rider which is simply unattractive at the very least. In the 21st century there can be no reason for a horse to be needed for that. I think every equestrian has a duty to pursue an ethical approach and that surely includes being as light as possible for the horses we choose to ride? And we should always aim to choose suitable, healthy horses or avoid riding at all. I can't see that riders at 20 or 30% of the horse's healthy bodyweight can gain anything at all from that...

I totally agree. You don’t need research to know that we should all be keeping our weight as low as we can for the benefit of our horses, and riding in the best balance we can. I agree with societies such as ROR setting a 'limit', but it's an arbitrary number, a bit like 10000 steps a day or 5 portions of fruit and veg- they were just numbers chosen largely at random because we know that steps are good and fruit/ veg are good, and they felt achievable!