Thoughts on BD bringing in 20% rider weight guidance?

I dont see the vets can do this in most circumstances.
they are even circumspect about saying that excess weight on the horse is the biggest indicator for orthopaedic issues.
 
Goldenstar said:
I dont see the vets can do this in most circumstances.
they are even circumspect about saying that excess weight on the horse is the biggest indicator for orthopaedic issues.
Click to expand...

Because I don't think it would be correct, moving in compensatory movement patterns would be the biggest indicator for orthopaedic issues, surely? This may in some cases be caused purely by weight, by no means all, though we can be sure that increased rider weight will compound any other issues for sure.
 
Horse riding is quite unique to other situations in that fat shaming is not black and white. In most scenarios if someone is being singled out or denied opportunities solely because of their weight that is pretty evidently fat shaming. If someone is comfortable with their weight why should someone else feel the need to comment on it when it doesnt affect them? The complexity in the equestrian world is that there is a third party who IS affected by the individual's weight.

Saying that a 17.2 irish draught hunter that likes to pull your arms out your sockets would probably be best suited to a male rider isn't sexist- there are probably some big/strong female riders out there that could ride it fine but most would struggle. In the same way a smaller sport horse would probably be suited to a slimmer rider- there are probably some short, well balanced 'curvy' riders out there that would be fine but on average it's not going to be a horse suitable for an overweight rider.

I do think it is important to enforce this rule fairly though. There are tall, well built male riders that I suspect are too heavy for some of the horses they ride as well as adult women on ponies that would fall outside of the weight limit- they should be checked just as much as an overweight rider.
 
scruffyponies said:
My concern about a rule such as this is that it encourages heavy riders to have overweight horses. This is something we see all too frequently already.
Too big? No problem, simply stuff your horse until he's obese. That will magiclaly make him able to bear twice the weight, as well as win more showing classes.
Click to expand...
The guidance is based on horses body condition, so no, you can’t get away with having a fat horse.
 
Kat said:
Vets are the most frustrating. If they are dealing with soundness issues they could easily say as a matter of course something like

"I'm not sure who the riders of this horse are but please make sure they are all less than 20% of the horse's bodyweight. I believe this horse weighs xxxx so the rider should be under xxxx to allow for tack"

No one is offended or body shamed. If they say it routinely then if someone feels"targeted" hopefully friends say that they were told the same.
Click to expand...

interestingly a few years ago when i had a vet out due to back pain in my horse he took one look at me and said ‘well you arent too heavy, most people i go to see about back pain are far too heavy for the horse’
I did wonder if the vet would actually address this subject with the owners/riders, or just say nothing.
 
ycbm said:
If should me done on horse condition score 3/5 I think. And for every 10kg extra that the horse is carrying above that weight, reduce the rider allowance by x? kg for the effects on the joints. Likewise, if the horse is super fit and lean, then that allows the rider to be heavier because the horse is not carrying its own weight.
.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point, condition of the horse, along with age, is something which is so often overlooked. In the last weeks I have made a decision to stop riding my schoolmistress. She is fit and well, and I am easily within any guidelines as to what weight she can carry, but she is getting on in years, and I can see that she is much happier being ridden by a light child. She will not be retiring, the vet advises to keep her moving, but she will no longer be ridden by adults.

I am a bit sad that I won't ride her again, as she is a joy to ride, always reliable and fun, but I have come to an arrangement which I consider very suitable for her. I have some friends with a pony mad daughter of almost 10, slender build and a nice little rider. The family have some financial difficulties, and they have had to give up her loan pony, so my schoolmistress will be the replacement. She will remain in my care at the same yard, I will pay for her, and the child will ride her at least 3 times a week, and can groom her / fuss her / generally treat her as if the pony was her own. On days that they cannot come I will loose school, or lead her off one of the others. It is great for everyone, as they are not people who would ever like to take advantage, and until illness affected their family income they were able to pay for their loan pony. As it is I could honestly tell them that it is a help to me, and for the good of the pony, so no one is left feeling embarrassed in any way.

The reaction of other liveries was interesting. Several said that I was being over cautious, which I find odd. I mean just because the pony is not buckling at the knees does not mean that she would not benefit from someone lighter. One lady said "but you're not fat!", well I never said I was, but anyway it is not relevant, as it is not about body fat. It was only one of the pros who instantly agreed, and said that if my instinct is that pony will benefit from a lighter rider then it is probably right, and good that I am not delaying. I now believe that many of the unsuitable combinations might be in part due to others being too accepting, and even encouraging about the situation. I mean if everyone around you says 'oh but you are fine, s/he can carry you' then I suppose it makes it harder to stop, especially in a situation such as this, where the pony is not suffering any ill effect from being ridden by an adult, but can have an easier and more enjoyable life without it.

Edited to add that the little girl came today for her first ride, and had a huge smile on her face the whole time. Her tears of joy when we told her that Floss will be 'her' pony were just wonderful to see - especially from a child who has been through a fair bit in the last year.
 
This 'old fashioned' calculation takes into account the build or overweight horses as it means less poundage left for the rider. All calculations are in LB (for youngsters multiply kg by 2.2) Add weight of horse, tack and rider with all riding kit on, divide the result by inches of bone beneath knee. So 500kg horse, 10kg tack, 70 kg rider = 580kg = 1276 lb, horse 8 inches bone so 1276 / 8 = 159.5 score. The number needs to be below 170 for hacking, and under 150 for jumping etc so
below 150 great
160 - 170 take care with low level riding
over 170 too heavy
In the calculation above rider is too heavy for all but low level work
The heavier/over weight the horse is the lighter the rider needs to be
 
Lovethebeach said:
This 'old fashioned' calculation takes into account the build or overweight horses as it means less poundage left for the rider. All calculations are in LB (for youngsters multiply kg by 2.2) Add weight of horse, tack and rider with all riding kit on, divide the result by inches of bone beneath knee. So 500kg horse, 10kg tack, 70 kg rider = 580kg = 1276 lb, horse 8 inches bone so 1276 / 8 = 159.5 score. The number needs to be below 170 for hacking, and under 150 for jumping etc so
below 150 great
160 - 170 take care with low level riding
over 170 too heavy
In the calculation above rider is too heavy for all but low level work
The heavier/over weight the horse is the lighter the rider needs to be
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense to me, the maths is wrong.
Dividing by the inches of bone in your example 8" giving 159.5 , 10" of bone would give 127.6 and 6" bone 212.7 which is surely the wrong way round.
 
Gloi said:
That doesn't make sense to me, the maths is wrong.
Dividing by the inches of bone in your example 8" giving 159.5 , 10" of bone would give 127.6 and 6" bone 212.7 which is surely the wrong way round.
Click to expand...
No that's right.
Put them in order with the same rider & tack weight-
Big horse with 10" of bone gives 127.6 which is well below 150, so great.
Same rider & tack on medium horse with 8" bone gives 159.5, so on that horse the rider needs to take care.
The smallest horse with 6" bone gives 212.7, which is more than 170, so the rider is too heavy for that horse.
 
Winters100 said:
I now believe that many of the unsuitable combinations might be in part due to others being too accepting, and even encouraging about the situation. I mean if everyone around you says 'oh but you are fine, s/he can carry you' then I suppose it makes it harder to stop
Click to expand...

I think this is undoubtedly the case, and you can see it happening with greater numbers of supporters on social media.

You've made a great decision for both your pony and the child.
.
 
Lovethebeach said:
This 'old fashioned' calculation takes into account the build or overweight horses as it means less poundage left for the rider. All calculations are in LB (for youngsters multiply kg by 2.2) Add weight of horse, tack and rider with all riding kit on, divide the result by inches of bone beneath knee. So 500kg horse, 10kg tack, 70 kg rider = 580kg = 1276 lb, horse 8 inches bone so 1276 / 8 = 159.5 score. The number needs to be below 170 for hacking, and under 150 for jumping etc so
below 150 great
160 - 170 take care with low level riding
over 170 too heavy
In the calculation above rider is too heavy for all but low level work
The heavier/over weight the horse is the lighter the rider needs to be
Click to expand...


I've never heard that before but it makes a lot of sense. Especially if people weigh the horses rather than using a tape on them.

I would want to reduce the score for youth, old age and some conformation defects (of the horse, not the rider :) ).
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top