The comprehensive weight carrying ability thread

Where is the role for that greatly underestimated skill Common sense in all this .
As for 20% we where taught 10 % for optimal athletic performance .
 
Goldenstar said:
Where is the role for that greatly underestimated skill Common sense in all this .
As for 20% we where taught 10 % for optimal athletic performance .
Click to expand...

I have been told that the 20% rule comes from the US army, it is the maximum weight in equipment that mules are asked to carry.
 
Faracat said:
http://www.j-evs.com/article/S0737-0806(07)00413-3/abstract
Click to expand...

Thank you FC, this is the one I remember reading recently. It's only a small study, but backs up the 20% rule, saying significant soreness etc was found at 25 and 30% weight carried, and also that the thicker the cannon bones and wider the loins, the more they could carry.
I'd like to see it done with a larger sample, and comparing TB, WB, pony and draft.
 
I can't abide the 20% rule! Or any other formula, there are too many variables! It relies on common sense, knowledge and experience - qualities sadly lacking in some owners!

There are so many overweight horses (and people) around these days. I do think it's easily open to abuse - people who think their horse looks fine (but is actually obese), use the 20% formula and horse ends up carrying too much.

I prefer to judge on what I see in front of me (and what I know about the horse in question) and would always choose to go slightly under (weight wise) than over.
 
Goldenstar said:
Where is the role for that greatly underestimated skill Common sense in all this .
As for 20% we where taught 10 % for optimal athletic performance .
Click to expand...

Of course, those people like yourself who are knowledgeable and have common sense don't need any rules. But the number of weight bearing threads on here would suggest that many do. I am not advocating one rule over any other; this thread is merely for people to suggest different rules or calculations and people can make up their own minds/comment on those that have been suggested.
 
Surely the best rule is that the rider must post a photo thread on HHO and we can all argue whether horse should be carrying three stone or 30!!! :)
 
Evie91 said:
I can't abide the 20% rule! Or any other formula, there are too many variables! It relies on common sense, knowledge and experience - qualities sadly lacking in some owners!

There are so many overweight horses (and people) around these days. I do think it's easily open to abuse - people who think their horse looks fine (but is actually obese), use the 20% formula and horse ends up carrying too much.

I prefer to judge on what I see in front of me (and what I know about the horse in question) and would always choose to go slightly under (weight wise) than over.
Click to expand...

I agree. A horse could already be carrying the equivalence of two riders in their own excess fat. It means that an overweight horse can carry more than a horse in tope condition, which is obviously nonsense.
 
Common sense is what makes me think that the horse in front of me with more bone would be capable of more. It's what suggests to me that when my chunky boy came to me and was lean though muscled (think racing weight) the 21 stone this calculation gives me is a tiny bit much.
 
I have a fantastic fool proof formula...

Take your eyes and look at the number on the bathroom scales
Then use those same eyes to judge the size and breed of the horse
Use your common sense brain function to work out the rest of the equation!

This formula is 100% fool proof.
 
Dr Hilary Clayton has done some research about saddle pressure and the rider's weight. It's interesting reading, links below including one to convert kPa to psi.

In short, in walk the maximal total force on the horse's back is the weight of the rider, in trot it's twice the weight of the rider and in canter it's three times the weight of the rider. Ischemic damage threshold values have been calculated and it is recommended that mean should be less than 11kPa and maximal should be less than 30kPa. To calculate your own values you need to know the bearing surface of your saddle in square inches and your weight in pounds. Divide lbs by square inches and convert to kPa.

I've found one site that says average English saddle bearing surface is 120-130 sq inches and average western is 180 sq inches, which is a quick guide. Obviously it depends how much of the saddle is in contact, for instance if you have an over stuffed saddle with only 'rolling pins' contacting the horse, the bearing surface is greatly reduced. Or a saddle that bridges or one that tips you forward or back etc.

http://www.equitationscience.com/documents/Conferences/2013/9th_ISES_Proceedings.pdf Page 35
http://www.equitationscience.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Science-in-the-saddle-Nov13.pdf
http://convertmpatopsi.com/kpa/convert-kPa-to-psi.html
 
Blurr said:
Dr Hilary Clayton has done some research about saddle pressure and the rider's weight. It's interesting reading, links below including one to convert kPa to psi.

In short, in walk the maximal total force on the horse's back is the weight of the rider, in trot it's twice the weight of the rider and in canter it's three times the weight of the rider. Ischemic damage threshold values have been calculated and it is recommended that mean should be less than 11kPa and maximal should be less than 30kPa. To calculate your own values you need to know the bearing surface of your saddle in square inches and your weight in pounds. Divide lbs by square inches and convert to kPa.

I've found one site that says average English saddle bearing surface is 120-130 sq inches and average western is 180 sq inches, which is a quick guide. Obviously it depends how much of the saddle is in contact, for instance if you have an over stuffed saddle with only 'rolling pins' contacting the horse, the bearing surface is greatly reduced. Or a saddle that bridges or one that tips you forward or back etc.

http://www.equitationscience.com/documents/Conferences/2013/9th_ISES_Proceedings.pdf Page 35
http://www.equitationscience.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Science-in-the-saddle-Nov13.pdf
http://convertmpatopsi.com/kpa/convert-kPa-to-psi.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for this! It is very useful and exactly the kind of thing I was hoping this thread would bring.
 
cattysmith said:
I have a fantastic fool proof formula...

Take your eyes and look at the number on the bathroom scales
Then use those same eyes to judge the size and breed of the horse
Use your common sense brain function to work out the rest of the equation!

This formula is 100% fool proof.
Click to expand...

It depends on the fitness, soundness, bone structure, build, conformation, amount of correct muscle, type of saddle, and what you are planning to do with the horse.

It also depends on the balance, tact, sensitivity of the rider. And how organised they are.

Far different a 6ft dressage rider, popping on horse to demonstrate something in a lesson and a 5ft rider of the same weight, that doesn’t have the same balance and core strength.

There are no hard and fast answers. It takes judgement in the moment and common sense.

Someone can be too heavy for their unmuscled four year old, and fine at same weight on the same horse two years later.

Someone can be fine for their horse, and then after a year of rest for an injury, no longer fine until horse and strengthened and gained muscle. All common sense.

Also some older horses love to be doing something, if you can judge what horse is enjoying, who is to say it is wrong?
 
10% is a load of rubbish - would mean a 400 kg pony could only carry 6st 2!! However the 20% rule on a 550kg horse would mean 17st 3 - which for an ISH-type is too much IMHO. I'm a big advocate of the common sense approach (though I'd imagine that's lacking in some people!)

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution tbh. Native ponies are comparatively stronger for their size than some bigger horses, but SO many other factors are involved that it's impossible to make an informed choice without treating every case as individual
 
Last edited:
Dr.Deb Bennett, heard of her? - said that the wider across the loins the greater the weight carrying ability of the horse.
Now, she is no lightweight, and she was riding quarter horse type horses.

Also, according to Dr.Bennett, a pony is "over engineered" compared to a horse, which is why they have much fewer soundness problems, their proportioins are slightly different. How many times have we said, I wish my pony was a couple of hands taller, he would be perfect!

Also, the optimimum size of a horse, regarding soundness, is 15.2 hh.
Which is also the opinion of a vet who was the first RSPCA equine vet and wrote a book many years ago. Anything over 15.3 is going to be subject to leg and wind problems.

TB racehorses are regularly carrying 11st 6lb + in steeplechases, so I think some estimations are a bit low.
 
Orangehorse said:
Dr.Deb Bennett, heard of her? - said that the wider across the loins the greater the weight carrying ability of the horse.
Now, she is no lightweight, and she was riding quarter horse type horses.

Also, according to Dr.Bennett, a pony is "over engineered" compared to a horse, which is why they have much fewer soundness problems, their proportioins are slightly different. How many times have we said, I wish my pony was a couple of hands taller, he would be perfect!

Also, the optimimum size of a horse, regarding soundness, is 15.2 hh.
Which is also the opinion of a vet who was the first RSPCA equine vet and wrote a book many years ago. Anything over 15.3 is going to be subject to leg and wind problems.

TB racehorses are regularly carrying 11st 6lb + in steeplechases, so I think some estimations are a bit low.
Click to expand...

Very interesting about the optimum height. I would probably agree with that from experience.
 
In the book written by the vet he said that you would get a gathering of people reminiscing about their hunters and often would recall a small horse, about 15.2 that was always sound, and did many seasons hunting and always ended up by saying, "What a pity the horse wasn't a bit taller." The vet's point was that it was that sound, long lasting horse BECAUSE it was that size.
 
It's the same with people; very tall people often have all kinds of physical problems - back pain, joint problems etc.
 
The 20% rule is very old - comes from the Prussian cavalry in the late 1800s. As the cavalry horses were at that time worked hard , with soldier plus gear , for several hours a day ,they had to be fit and last many years. The prussians bred there own horses and therefore had an interest in their investment lasting well.The same people [ army vets?] worked out that backing a cavalry horse at 4 meant it lasted years longer than one backed at three. And yes, the same Prussians found 15.2 was the optimum height.
I think those of an 'ordinary' weight are becoming a bit paranoid about the weight ing [ wasnt it just 1 piece of research thought 15% was the top limit?] - many horses these days do not work hard or long hours . Natives such as the Fell and Dales were bred to carry panniers of about 15 stone of lead , so surely they can manage a 13 stone adult for a hack.
However, I am sometimes shocked by stout adults on Welsh section As or similar- in the show ring ! Even ,say, maxi cobs would hardly be expected to carry someone over 16 stone for a days hunting.
Perhaps explaining the 20% rule of thumb to politely tell a grossly under -horsed person that they are too heavy makes it more objective and less of a personal insult? Not that I ve tried it!
 
wanted to add how many of us do actually know the accurate weight of our horses? weigh tapes are ok but are not always accurate. unless a weigh bridge is used we dont really know. same applies with worming I wonder how many horses are under dosed because the weigh tape didint quite do an accurate measure or even worse the owner just guesses at the horses weight.
So we can use any formula we like to get the horses carrying ability but all will be wrong unless we actually know the horses true weight.
 
I've just weighed myself dressed to ride holding the saddle and bridle. Total is 82kg. one of my horses weighs 510kg on the weigh tape. 7.5 inches of bone mid cannon.
using the formula which involves cannon measurement the reading comes out at 85,6 so I'm too heavy.
15% of 510 kg is 76 kilo
20% is 102 kg.
So massive differences in answers.
I cant belive that my horse could carry 102 kg ok

all this assuming the weigh tape has measured the horse correctly.
 
Last edited:
Personally I believe if you have to ask then you know yourself you are too heavy, experience and balance aside one weighs what one does and remember a riding school has an upper weight limit of 14 stone for good reason.
That's just my take on it. I know adults can ride many of the small native ponies, but I don't really like to see it unless the adult is really petite.
 
I find the height thing interesting as we have moved to an age ( in this country at least) where big warmbloods are fashionable and 16 1 is described as 'little'.
 
FairyLights said:
I've just weighed myself dressed to ride holding the saddle and bridle. Total is 82kg. one of my horses weighs 510kg on the weigh tape. 7.5 inches of bone mid cannon. I reckon I'm too heavy :-(
Click to expand...

7.5 inches is pretty fine. I usually measure cannon bone just under the knee but see the formula I quoted in my OP says mid cannon. Is there much difference?
 
criso said:
I find the height thing interesting as we have moved to an age ( in this country at least) where big warmbloods are fashionable and 16 1 is described as 'little'.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe Valegro was gelded because he was 'too small'. I think he's around 16.1hh. (Bet they're regretting that now). Personally I like smaller horses. I can't understand all these tiny women on big WBs but it seems to be the in thing nowadays in dressage. I'm going to look really odd on my little 15 hander.
 
Re weight of horses, do think people grossly underestimate. Popped my 14.2 on a weighbridge the other day and she was nearing 500kg rather than the 420 I'd put her at. And she was pretty lean at that time, could see ribs when she turned her head. Vet was shocked!
 
My experience has been that weightapes underestimate bt about 30kg, but the portable ones the feed companies bring out overestimated by the same. I go by the vet college one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top