Too fat to ride?

E
FfionWinnie said:
I already said the saddle could have been made bigger if necessary but it was deemed not necessary. I'm not sitting on the cantle and I don't have a fat backside nor does my horse have a sore back so that would seem to mean everything is fine.

I could just shoot her tomorrow and get a bigger one but since everything is going swimmingly I think she would rather we stuck with the status quo.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise you were only talking about yourself. I thought we were talking about it being no longer necessary in more general terms. Presumably if your saddler doesn't think you need the space in the saddle he/she would advise others in the same way.
 
ester said:
Saddles really are hugely different these days though compare to the swept up panels and flatter seats of old. It seems a bit of an odd rule to me as it is usually obvious if a small saddle is making someone sit too much on the cantle.
Click to expand...

I think it may depend a bit on the discipline and type of saddle.

For instance, in my experience, flat seated saddles are still sought after for XC in order to allow the jockey to push his arse back over a fence whilst riding short and also so as not to be whacked in the small of the back by a banana curved cantle when leaning back over a drop. In this instance I would suggest that a hands width behind the bum could be a good indicator as to fit - along with the other usual measures of course!

I had to smile at your comment about older saddles being flatter.....I still have nightmares at the U shaped County dressage saddles (and other makes too!) that I used to inflict on my ned in the early 70s! :) In hindsight, they were truly hideous.
 
SpringArising said:
I saw that documentary too and thought it was wrong (if we're thinking of the same one). I don't know what kind of publicity it got in terms of positive or negative, but I just didn't agree with it. Being unhealthily overweight isn't OK, and we shouldn't be setting that kind of example to children and teenagers. I also found it incredibly hypocritical - they spent an hour saying that everyone should be accepted no matter what size you are or what you look like, and yet they wouldn't let anyone model for them who wasn't over 5'6" or something.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually see the whole documentary, I saw one of the models in it being interviewed by a news channel. They were promoting the programme which was on later that week but I missed it because I was busy. So, i presume it was the same one.

I know some people find it harder to lose weight. I use to be able to eat what I wanted within reason, although I still went to the gym & went running. Now i've noticed i've put on nearly a stone since hitting my 30's and now have changed my eating habits to reflect this. (now 9st for a 14.3 welsh d, for anyone wondering).

However, being healthy is perfectly doo-able.
I get the impression most people just can't be bothered.
 
Wiz201 said:
easier said than done sadly. I'm about to try again losing weight, very difficult with a condition that causes weight gain.
Click to expand...

I do feel for people who do struggle to lose weight. I now find it much harder to eat what I want, but i've accepted that and deal with it accordingly (cakes and biscuits are now a rare treat).

My other half eats whatever he wants and still looks like a rake.
 
cobgoblin said:
E

I didn't realise you were only talking about yourself. I thought we were talking about it being no longer necessary in more general terms. Presumably if your saddler doesn't think you need the space in the saddle he/she would advise others in the same way.
Click to expand...

I was saying that the hands breadth thing has not passed me by. I am quite aware of what used to be advised. I am not convinced it still is as saddles and the fitting of them has changed dramatically even in the last few years. And I mean for the better, for the horse's comfort. You then quoted me and said words to the effect that it had changed possibly for necessity so I explained that in my case at least, it was not for necessity.
 
ester said:
I don't think anyone can talk about being at the top of the a horses 'limit' when there is no fail proof formula to say what this limit is :p.

% of weight misses out rather a lot of factors, and arabs rather mess up measuring bone as well.
Click to expand...

As I've stated previously , if the horse braces itself when you prepare to mount you're too heavy!😜
 
FfionWinnie said:
I was saying that the hands breadth thing has not passed me by. I am quite aware of what used to be advised. I am not convinced it still is as saddles and the fitting of them has changed dramatically even in the last few years. And I mean for the better, for the horse's comfort. You then quoted me and said words to the effect that it had changed possibly for necessity so I explained that in my case at least, it was not for necessity.
Click to expand...

However, for those who are unsure of their size relative to the horse they wish to ride, then perhaps if the saddle is fitted to the horse, a guide for them would be a hand in front and one behind. As an aside, having seen a lot of riders at a local show this weekend,, sitting on the back of the saddle, in a chair seat, perhaps it could be re-introduced!
 
I guess that is perhaps what people mean by riding 'light' ie centered and not causing areas of high pressure where there shouldn't be - further to Red-1s experience (thanks for that Red-1, interesting!)

gunnergundog, I wasn't around in the 70s ;). TBF the only older saddles I've dealt with are usually pony GPs at riding schools. I would want something flatter with space behind if I were XCing but then if I was doing that seriously I wouldn't have an aged welshie either :D
 
ester said:
gunnergundog, I wasn't around in the 70s ;). TBF the only older saddles I've dealt with are usually pony GPs at riding schools. I would want something flatter with space behind if I were XCing but then if I was doing that seriously I wouldn't have an aged welshie either :D
Click to expand...

Now feeling VERY old! :) :(
 
ester said:
I guess that is perhaps what people mean by riding 'light' ie centered and not causing areas of high pressure where there shouldn't be - further to Red-1s experience (thanks for that Red-1, interesting!)
Click to expand...

I'm certain of it, however others will strongly point out that 14 stone is 14 stone, no matter what. If someone of 10 stone is putting excessive pressure on any part of the back then that is worse for the horse, more difficult, than someone of 14 stone whose weight is spread evenly IMHO.
 
jemima*askin said:
I'm certain of it, however others will strongly point out that 14 stone is 14 stone, no matter what. If someone of 10 stone is putting excessive pressure on any part of the back then that is worse for the horse, more difficult, than someone of 14 stone whose weight is spread evenly IMHO.
Click to expand...


Good riding does not make you levitate and 14st will always be 14st. Which for some ponies is far more than is fair to make them carry. Pointing out that some lightweight riders ride badly doesn't change that.

At best 14st is well balanced and spread evenly. That still makes them 14st OR MORE. And being 14st doesn't automatically make you a top riders and everyone makes mistakes at times. A 10st rider's mistake (say it doubles the weight in an area briefly) may occasionally feel like 20st. A 14st rider will feel like 28st.

A balanced 14st rider may be better than an unbalanced 10st rider but no 14st rider will ever rider 'lighter' than an equally balanced 10st riders. And when 'balance' don't really come into play (so the majority of walk work for the 'average' horse owning rider) then the 14st rider is nearly 50% extra pressing unendingly down into the horses back.
 
X
Kallibear said:
Good riding does not make you levitate and 14st will always be 14st. Which for some ponies is far more than is fair to make them carry. Pointing out that some lightweight riders ride badly doesn't change that.

At best 14st is well balanced and spread evenly. That still makes them 14st OR MORE. And being 14st doesn't automatically make you a top riders and everyone makes mistakes at times. A 10st rider's mistake (say it doubles the weight in an area briefly) may occasionally feel like 20st. A 14st rider will feel like 28st.

A balanced 14st rider may be better than an unbalanced 10st rider but no 14st rider will ever rider 'lighter' than an equally balanced 10st riders. And when 'balance' don't really come into play (so the majority of walk work for the 'average' horse owning rider) then the 14st rider is nearly 50% extra pressing unendingly down into the horses back.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
jemima*askin said:
I'm certain of it, however others will strongly point out that 14 stone is 14 stone, no matter what. If someone of 10 stone is putting excessive pressure on any part of the back then that is worse for the horse, more difficult, than someone of 14 stone whose weight is spread evenly IMHO.
Click to expand...

Well as I am 10 stone I must be a terribly unbalanced rider :(. I wonder why it is that all heavyweight riders ride so well and in balance when all the lighter riders (those 10 stone and under) seem to be such unbalanced equestrians, who bump about on their horses causing all kinds of pressure points and discomfort. Am I missing something?

Sorry, not getting at you here, but it seems to be a point that is always made in these threads and it worries me that people actually think it. There will probably be more unbalanced riders who are overweight than there are who are a healthy weight, if anything, because generally speaking people of a healthy weight are fitter and more supple than people who are unhealthily overweight. It is much harder trying to balance when you are carrying excess weight. I say generally speaking, because there will be exceptions, of course.
 
Last edited:
Kallibear said:
Good riding does not make you levitate and 14st will always be 14st. .
Click to expand...

Indeed, hence why "riding light" is a daft phrase. What I prefer is "riding heavy". There are very many light riders who ride heavy as often are not aware of how their weight might have an impact on the horse ( there are of course very many excellent ones too!). I would rather a heavier balanced rider on my horse, than a lighter one "riding heavy" - well within the horses capabilities of course. When I was training my OH to ride, he had no stirrups or reins and was taught how to influence the horse with seat alone. Seat is often left out when teaching new riders these days :(
 
Last edited:
Kallibear said:
Good riding does not make you levitate and 14st will always be 14st.
Click to expand...

Agree. And if a six stone person is riding with all their weight in one stirrup, that's probably worse than an even fourteen-stone rider. That still doesn't mean I'd want anyone who is fourteen stone riding something that might not be up to carrying that weight (and honestly, I wouldn't want to put fourteen stone on most things).

We once had a very chunky 13.2 Connie gelding. Tough as nails and sturdy as anything. Good example of the breed with a nice short back. Our twelve-stone friend asked if she could have a sit on him and we said yes out of politeness. As soon as she got on the pony's hocks buckled for about three seconds and he grunted - no exaggeration.

I do think that a lot of people over-estimate what they can carry; maybe because they don't want to admit to themselves that something needs to be done about their own weight. I had to send a very awkward email to a prospective buyer not so long ago, telling her that I feel she is bigger than what the horse could carry.

It would be a lot nicer for everyone if people were realistic.
 
alainax said:
I would rather a heavier balanced rider on my horse, than a lighter one "riding heavy".
Click to expand...
And I'd rather have a light balanced rider :p
Simple fact, it's a lot easier to be in balance when not overweight, especially on a horse. Therefore it would seem logical that there are more unbalanced heavy riders than their are unbalanced light riders.
 
I wasn't suggesting that 14st wasn't 14st, but given the results that Red-1 saw sitting well seemed to make a huge difference rather than just pure weight, light and balanced ideal but that does again go back to what suitably light is ;). It is also possible to carry some excess and have pretty impressive core strength and fitness so I don't think the above is always logical PM.
 
With a BMI of 35+ the OP is obese and therefore very unlikely to be able to ride in as good a balance as some-one within the healthy range for their height. I am also confused as to why there appears to be a belief that riders within the healthy BMI range, will automatically ride badly, without balance and with no core strength or muscle control, that really is more likely with obese riders!
 
I don't think anyone was saying that, just that the opposite is automatically true either.

And thought it interesting that the whole balanced heavier v. unbalanced lighter (however rarely those combos might occur) very often comes up on here and Red-1s observations perhaps shed a bit of light on that.
 
I can't really be bothered to get embroiled in a weight thread, but I have a story to tell about something myself and a bunch of other young dressagey people were made to do by our trainer in Germany. He was on the yard when we came back from hacking, and was furious because certain people were slouching, moving around in the saddle, and just generally slobbing about. He filled one rucksack to the brim with neatly packed yard jackets and boots and strapped it on to the nearest person firmly. He put a few bricks in another, and just hung it off the shoulders of the next person. He made them run round the school a few times, then swap rucksacks, and try again. Both agreed that the firmly strapped on rucksack (which was heavier) was easier to carry than the lighter, looser one with a few bricks bouncing aroud in it. I agree that a horse carrying 14 stones is carrying 14 stones, but 14 stones of balanced, competent rider is a damn sight easier to carry than 11 stones banging around on a horses back. Equally 11 stones of balanced competent rider is easier to carry thatn 14 stones of the same.
 
Going back on what the OP said, she mentioned she'd ridden a lot in the past but hadn't for a while and therefore was getting back into it.

As such, I don't think any horse would be suitable unless she lost some weight, as her balance isn't going to be as good as it might have been.

Also, no-one can say they 100% keep their balance at all times. Therefore, a heavy rider is going to be more detrimental to a horse than a lighter one when that happens.

Just getting to the point I guess.
 
An unbalanced lightweight rider can quickly become a lightweight balanced rider, whereas a heavy balanced rider has to shift a lot of weight to become the same.
 
Just out of curiosity - what weight would people put on an 11.2 section a? My kids are all light, even the girl at the yard who's rode her is only 4 stone, I can't imagine her wanting to carry too much more yet I've seen posts where adults of significantly more weight say they would ride one! Now we're obviously not talking 14 stone, lol......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top