windand rain
Well-Known Member
Perhaps a degree disertation or phd research idea then and get more data
Sue dysan - made up expert
- Thread starter Gingerwitch
- Start date
ihatework
Well-Known Member
One would have to imagine it was a factor in that decision, if what is reported is accurate (please remember the investigation is not completed/published). And you would also have to wonder if it had any bearing of AHT securing funding.
TPO
Well-Known Member
The horses were sound initially and only presented as lame under the heavier riders iirc? (I may also be recalling incorrectly!).
I *think* it was loosely based on an RS model therefore horses have their own fitting tack and different riders in that tack.
I'd presume if you were a horse owner you would be expected to have tack to fit your horse and you.
It will be a shame if the take away message is lost because of whatever she is accused of doing. So many riders, of all weights, appear to be unaware of the impact we all have riding horses and of the need for correctly fitting tack.
Last year, as haven't been anywhere this year(!), I saw so many riders where their seat went beyond the cantle and negatively affected the horse and saddle fit. The worse one what at a western show where a poor cob had a synthetic saddle on that was almost bent in two.
I remember some of the vitriol about this paper at the time and people saying it was "fat shaming" rather than animal welfare. It will be a real shame if because of this the whole lesson is lost.
ozpoz
Well-Known Member
If you read the study, it explains that it was designed to reflect everyday situations, for example at riding schools. It is such a complex subject. The study was very well received when presented to an audience of people who are actively involved in, work with, or understand the complexities of research.
It was anything but a fat shaming exercise, or flawed, and was a pilot study.
It was anything but a fat shaming exercise, or flawed, and was a pilot study.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Pretty good at research complexity myself, hence why all the issues concerned me. I don't think the communication of the science to the general public was great, it came out in dribs and drabs to start with, presumably to attract interest.
Annagain
Well-Known Member
I think I remember discussing it at the time and my issue was they didn't really use any proper weight carrying horses. I think the heaviest horse was about 550kg and quite a fine horse so of course the heavier riders weren't going to be suited to those horses - or be likely to ride them normally. Had they included a 700kg ID type horse or even a 600kg cob type it might have produced very different results.
Pearlsacarolsinger
Up in the clouds
But if the research is flawed the whole exercise is pointless. I don't get the RS aspect, either. It is the responsibility of the RS manager/owner to ensure that horses are only expected to carry riders who can fit into their tack.
ihatework
Well-Known Member
For me it’s an infuriating study. Because I think the hypothesis has real merit and deserves a good study. But the study done as someone said was a pilot, and sufficiently flawed that the significance given to it was blown out of proportion based on who did it. It needed to be refined and done better.
ozpoz
Well-Known Member
I would love to know why you think it was flawed - it is clearly explains the hows and whys, and is free to read.
Re the saddle fit - that doesn't happen, either in riding schools or with owners. Ask any saddle fitter, vet or physio.
Re the saddle fit - that doesn't happen, either in riding schools or with owners. Ask any saddle fitter, vet or physio.
DirectorFury
Well-Known Member
Archive full version of the Telegraph article for those that couldn’t get past the paywall: https://archive.is/hBrLZ
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
It introduces bias, it is known that saddle fit can cause soundness issues and rider weight affects saddle fit.. That is well studied. To study the effect of weight alone you need a level playing field.
If you put a rider on a saddle that is too small for them they don’t ride as well and sit on the back of the saddle causing a pressure point regardless of the riders weight.
As mentioned before, using a saddle that fit the larger riders would have lessened the bias.
An ideal would have been to have 4 of the same saddle all fitted to the horse and riders.
As it is you cannot separate the damage caused by weight and the damaged caused by an ill fitting saddle.
Shilasdair
Patting her thylacine
It was a pretty terrible study, anyway, so no loss there.
And I say that as someone who used to supervise dissertations on similar themes.
It did fit beautifully into a fat shaming narrative though - where we can vilify 'heavy' and 'very heavy' riders in ill fitting saddles, rather than actually thinking about the real question which is 'What weight is beneficial for a horse to carry'. I suggest the answer is 'None'.
And I say that as someone who used to supervise dissertations on similar themes.
It did fit beautifully into a fat shaming narrative though - where we can vilify 'heavy' and 'very heavy' riders in ill fitting saddles, rather than actually thinking about the real question which is 'What weight is beneficial for a horse to carry'. I suggest the answer is 'None'.
TPO
Well-Known Member
Well it did for a minute appear to make some people aware of the weight limitations of horses and the negative affects (e.g. presenting lame) when ridden by heavier/too heavy riders.
Obesity is a big problem in the UK and that will affect industries like RS. I'm pretty sure we've all seen some horror show videos of too big riders in the USA.
An RS can only do their best to have fitting tack for each horse (as in by legislation every horse should have its own fitted tack) but it would be impossible to accommodate every weight and build of rider. There are often discussions on here about RS weight limits and there is never a unanimous agreement about it.
There are single horse owners riding in saddles they don't fit into and that are negatively affecting the horse. My personal opinion is that Sue's name added some gravitas to the study more than if it had been an unknown, that made it harder to be dismissed. I think it's a shame if the allegations are true that it's possible the while point of the study (animal welfare) could be dismissed as codswallop when I believe there is merit in the results
TPO
Well-Known Member
I'm clearly a moron and need it explained even in simpler terms...sorry ?
The saddle did fit the horses in the study. It still fitted with other riders of various height, builds, leg lengths and weights. It only didnt fit (or more to the point caused increased pressure/pressure points) when it was an overweight rider on it.
Looking in the photos above of the riders sat in the saddles I wouldn't have thought that even an 18 or 19" saddle would have accommodated the larger rider? Where is the line drawn in regards to saddle fitting/seat sizes?
Is there not some onus on riders to be fit to ride?
Another thing I've never understood is the "a heavy good rider is better" argument. Surely gravity means that 17st is 17st? I understand the basics of force = mass x acceleration so an 8st rider could exhort a higher force if they were thumping about out of balance but surely a 17st rider is never going to be anything less than 17st on the horse's back and quite possibly a fair bit more with general movement?
*plucked 17st out of my head because I vaguely thought that was roundabout thr weight of the heaviest rider in the study
PurBee
Well-Known Member
i read that study recently and thought it odd they didnt use different sized saddles to actually fit all the riders. So the ‘results’ are effectively useless as the fit wasn’t ideal in the first place.
Studies should be performed without bias - the author clearly was biased. These kinds of studies, aswell as others with invested funding sources, aren’t fit for publishing.
TPO
Well-Known Member
I also don't get the "fat shaming" narrative.
Saying that someone is too heavy to do X isn't shaming them. Someone can have a low body fat and still be too heavy e.g. a body builder.
If someone is too heavy they are too heavy. Should animal welfare be compromised because someone feels entitled to do X regardless?
Saying that someone is too heavy to do X isn't shaming them. Someone can have a low body fat and still be too heavy e.g. a body builder.
If someone is too heavy they are too heavy. Should animal welfare be compromised because someone feels entitled to do X regardless?
Not_so_brave_anymore
Well-Known Member
Yes, I've always thought it should be presented more as "weak/unbalanced rider = worse" rather than "well balanced rider = better". You can fling your weight around to make it seem more than it is, but you can't literally "carry" yourself so the horse doesn't have to.
Mule
Well-Known Member
The thing about 'a heavy good rider' being easier to carry than a heavy mediocre rider is because the good rider uses their balance and strength to hold their own weight. Think of lifting a child who becomes floppy (a dead weight) compared to holding him/herself normally. 'Going floppy' is an old tactic that protestors use to make it more difficult for the police to remove them.
TPO
Well-Known Member
I do understand the concept but if I was 17st and rode like CDJ I would still be 17st on the horse's back.
As a horse I'd prefer an average 11st rider than a brilliant 17st rider iykwim?
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
I think it's a welfare issue COMPOUNDED by an ill-fitting saddle. It should be fast-tracked as a study and done correctly.
It would be interesting to find out why Sue tried to circumvent the protocols. What a shame. The issue needs addressing, though I'm at a complete loss as to why anyone would inflict themselves on a horse's back in anything except a fair proportion and suitable equipment.
Mule
Well-Known Member
I'd also prefer an 11 stone rider. The comparison is just between the two seventeen stone riders.
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
It's a saddle that is correct for the horse? So therefore anyone who doesn't fit the saddle has no business ON the horse. Call it fat-shaming if you must. I call it physics and welfare.
TPO
Well-Known Member
Gotcha, sorry. The comparisons I was meaning was the often quoted in here "I'd rather a good heavier/heavy rider than a novice lighter rider". Of two the same weight I'd want the CDJ-esque one too!
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
Yes.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I have always like the analogy of carrying someone piggy back. If you have ever carried a larger child, if they do not sit still, it's almost as difficult as carrying someone who is a lot heavier and is cooperative. Also, dead weight is can not be redistributed, to suit an activity, like the groom and driver ins carriage driving, where the groom can be used as ballast and 'carriage mover'. When you ride you can use your core muscles and body weight to affect the speed of the animal, and also shift your weight to change direction, so you can more subtle aids, are not reliant on the use of your hands. It's not often you see children taught this
I want to know why they always use women as examples, men can weigh more than women but often do not look heavier due to the distribution of muscle and body fat. I would also like to know what top male riders weigh, and the size and body weight of their rides. Let's face it in racing the riders weights are declared.
I want to know why they always use women as examples, men can weigh more than women but often do not look heavier due to the distribution of muscle and body fat. I would also like to know what top male riders weigh, and the size and body weight of their rides. Let's face it in racing the riders weights are declared.
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
If you put a lightweight adult rider on a 15” saddle that was fitted to the horse they would be unlikely to be able to balance as well as normal and would be sitting on the cantle causing pressure points.
My lad can take a 17.5” saddle comfortably, i ride him in a 16.5” because that is what fits me best.
If my backside were bigger, a 17.5” would be better for him as my theoretically bigger bum wouldn’t be on the cantle of the saddle driving it into his back and causing damage.
My saddle is also fitted such that it fits correctly with my weight in it, it would sit higher with a lighter rider i believe and that would run the risk of it not fitting correctly.
As for the heavy good rider vs the lighter naff rider argument. It doesnt stand up for huge weight differences but if you have a well balanced 12st rider, they are normally better for the horse than say an 10 stone beginner that crashes down onto the saddle every stride in trot or canter.
My lad can take a 17.5” saddle comfortably, i ride him in a 16.5” because that is what fits me best.
If my backside were bigger, a 17.5” would be better for him as my theoretically bigger bum wouldn’t be on the cantle of the saddle driving it into his back and causing damage.
My saddle is also fitted such that it fits correctly with my weight in it, it would sit higher with a lighter rider i believe and that would run the risk of it not fitting correctly.
As for the heavy good rider vs the lighter naff rider argument. It doesnt stand up for huge weight differences but if you have a well balanced 12st rider, they are normally better for the horse than say an 10 stone beginner that crashes down onto the saddle every stride in trot or canter.
Last edited:
TPO
Well-Known Member
"Heavy" rider, second from right, in this study is male
I think heights and weights used to be on FEI site for all "top" riders. It was possibly an Olympic site now that I'm thinking about it ot maybe I was right initially and it was FEI site for WEG ? but yeah heights and weights are out there so to speak
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
Just because a saddle is fitted to a horse does not necessarily mean it is the biggest size that could be fitted to a horse. My lad can and has previously been fitted a17.5” saddle. I ride him in a 16.5” as it fits me better.
A bigger rider would be better in the 17.5”
windand rain
Well-Known Member
I have seen thermal imaging that makes me think I would prefer a heavy balanced rider to an 8 stone beginner. The research needs to be done properly with thousands of riders and horses for it to have any value. Not cheap but important for animal welfare 6 riders is no sample
TPO
Well-Known Member
Not good at multi quote...
First point re 15" saddle. The assumption is that if it's the lightweight adult mentioned then "damage" is minimal especially compared to putting a heavy rider on the same horse/saddle set up.
The ideal of course is that a saddle fits both horse and rider.
The example of you and your horse works because you fit into your saddle and your horses back can accommodate his saddle.
The problem is when, even if a horse *could* carry it, 17st+ simply doesnt fit into any saddle.
Then you could throw in the argument that a longer equine back can be weaker. So you are putting a 19" saddle that does fit onto an already weaker structure then adding 17st+
Again 17st is plucked from my brains recollection of the study and that could be wrong.
Different horses can carry different weights and every horse will have a different line as to where the No is that they can be asked to carry comfortably but generally speaking there has to be a cut off point somewhere? Again I've seen the horror vids of 20st+ tourist on horses/donkeys and its horrific.