# The 20% Rule and an Often Cited Study



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

This is very interesting, thank you! 

I have a friend who many moons ago rode endurance and even competed in the Tevis (I don't think she finished though) but anyway, the point is she rode endurance and new quite a bit about it. She felt a horse could carry even a heavy rider in endurance if he was conditioned to that weight on his training rides. She felt like even "I" could do endurance rides if I conditioned my horse and wasn't hell bent on winning.......just to do the rides and have fun. I never did that......I weigh a bit over 200 lbs, but it made me feel a bit better that she didn't think I was too big to ride. 

I still feel guilty being a heavier rider, and I would love to get under 200 lbs at some point......but it seems like other people don't see me as an elephant like I do......and the horses seem to carry me just fine. 

So anyway, thank you for the very interesting "food for thought."


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

The problem is that when you call it a rule and base it on only one factor (percent of weight) you have basically created controversy and a situation that is not based on the bigger picture. There will always be an optimal range for any given situation. Any change to the parameters changes the optimal range.

An out of shape, overweight, weekend rider riding an out of shape horse with out its nutritional needs met, under or overweight or without proper hoof care and questionable conformation or conformation that does not lend itself to being ridden by said rider is a bad situation for both parties.

Change that around and have a fit, skilled rider on a fit, conditioned horse that has ideal weight carrying conformation (shorter in stature relative to hoof size and shape, cannon circumference, loin width and shortness of back) and you have a situation where the weight of the rider can be increased without issue. Even to levels many would be horrified at.

The problem is that people are not honest about their skills, their weight or their fitness level. They want to just get on and ride. A well kept, optimally conformed, rental string in well fitted tack that optimally spreads the weight, that is busy year round or carefully conditioned before the busy season starts can handle a heavier, unfit rider. That just doesn't always happen. Lesson horses, backyard horses, any horse that is being ridden can benefit from a guideline that uses a flexible 20% as well as looking at conformation which typically gets ignored because there is a 20% rule. Works both ways as some don't need 20% on them.

Add to that the age a horse gets started and conditions it is started under and you(g) can be setting your horse up for a breakdown.

Better though not perfect is to look at the formula that uses total weight of horse rider and tack and takes in consideration cannon circumference.

Here is that formula on several horses and those horses. According to those that use it ideal number is below 85.

I used 250 lbs tack/rider.

1) 1450+250=1700÷11.25=150÷2=75
Horse is 16h, short back, wide loin, #7 shoe
Draft cross -bay 20% is 290
2) 1000+250=1250÷8.50=147÷2=73
Horse is 14.2h, short back, wide loin, #2 shoe
Quarter Horse -bay 20% is 200
3) 1100+250=1350÷8.25=164÷2=82
Horse is 15h, medium back, medium loin, #00
Quarter Horse -palomino 20% is 220
4) 1000+250=1250÷8.25=151÷2=76
Horse is 15.2h, long back, narrow loin, #2
Solid Paint -dark bay 20% is 200


Pardon feet as farrier was past due out.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

For comparison one of my hitch bred drafts
1800+250=2050÷12.25=167÷2=84
18.2h Longer back, narrower loin for a draft, #7 shoe, 20% is 360. Not happening on this horse with a longer back and narrow loin. At 250 the formula is about maxed out.

Notice the formula numbers for all. The draft has the worst, the cross the best and saddle horses in the middle. Number 3 and 4, I would not put anyone over 180 on plus English tack without conditioning and even then I'd limit it to 200 for one because of feet and the other back. The best number though is found on number 2.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I think another important factor is what the ride will consist of. Trooper is out of riding shape. He's been ridden a half dozen times this year. We hope to move and have the horses with us by February. The new place has more level, softer ground and almost no cactus. I plan to keep riding Bandit but add Trooper into regular riding. But since he is out of shape for riding, we'll start with walking. Probably less than 30 minutes on level ground. When we're up to an hour or more of walking, we'll add short trots or a brief (100 yards) canter. He is as old a horse as I am a human. He won't build up strength like a younger horse could and will need more recovery time in between. And he'll get it. He's probably 800 lbs right now. 

The 20% rule would say I shouldn't even get on him. But that is wrong. Like the study showed - contrary to their "conclusions", but what the data showed - a horse can definitely handle over 20% and horses need exercise. But like humans, horses need PROGRESSIVE exercise. And yes, Trooper will need to get tired as part of getting stronger. He'll probably even need to be exercised enough to create changes in his blood chemistry. But he does NOT need to be ridden hard, then forgotten for weeks, then ridden hard, etc. And simply walking while ridden is a great exercise for horses. But with an out of shape horse you need the patience to get him back into shape, particularly - speaking as a guy in his 60s - when they are older!

I guess the root problem is you cannot teach people to treat horses as living creatures. Too many riders make riding all about themselves and won't ask, "_Is my horse ready - mentally, emotionally and physically - for the task today?_" And unhappily, too many will never say, "_It is spring. My horse hasn't been ridden for months. I need to EASE him back into riding._" 

My big objection is to people who cite this study without ever having read it, and then insist no horse can humanely be ridden above 20%. All the study actually showed was that an out of shape horse barely gets exercised at 20%, even when trotted and cantered. Assuming good conformation and good health otherwise, a fit horse can easily carry more.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

If you took that same formula and applied it to the draft cross using the 360 that is 20% weight wise for the draft you are at 80, still under the 85. While I wouldn't put 450 pounds on a horse using the formula I'd be at 84 for the draft cross.

There comes a point when driving needs to be an option.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

As a rule, the larger the horse, the less excess carrying capacity it has. Which is another reason to reject a 20% rule. Animals are 3-dimensional, but the cross section of bones is 2-dimensional. A horse who doubled his size in all dimensions would weight 2 x 2 x 2, or 8 times as much. But his cross section - bone strength - would go up 2 x 2, or 4 times.

Going from 900 lbs to 1500 lbs, the horse is increasing in size by the cube root of 1500/900, or by 19% in each dimension. So while weight has increased by 67%, the cross section of the bones has only gone up by 40% (1.19 squared). 

And the horse's back already is supporting all the weight of his body & organs. The 20% Rule encourages people to think "_Get a BIG horse. Maybe a draft!_" But the big horse has more absolute strength yet less relative, surplus strength.

I think the simplest rule is simply to watch a given horse. If the horse needs to brace his back, either A) The horse doesn't know how to carry a rider yet, or B) The rider is too heavy for that horse. Maybe even too heavy for a walk. OTOH, back when I was putting 220 total on Mia's 900 lb body (25%), she barely knew I was there. She could prance around and NEVER had an issue with changing directions suddenly. Or leaping sideways. She often wore ME out, but I never saw any indication I was making HER tired!

OTOH, Bandit raced up to 15 mile legs with nearly 40% on his back. He braced like an I-beam as soon as I mounted - until he realized he no longer needed to. He now uses his back fluidly, not stiffly. 

People WANT a simple rule. One that requires no judgment. But horses are living creatures and their bodies include a huge number of variables, one of which is conditioning. But also conformation, bone strength, balance, etc. What is certainly NOT true is that 20% represents a maximum carrying capacity for horses. The study showed it is more like a minimum weight bearing capability for most out of shape horses.


----------



## AragoASB (Jul 12, 2020)

When the backside of the rider is the same width as the backside of the horse something is wrong with this picture.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> Virtually anyone discussing the 20% Rule (Rider Weight / Horse's Weight) will eventually come back to this study done in 2008.


I hadn't heard of this study, so thanks for sharing. 

My own attitude about 'the 20% thing' comes from a number of different bodyworkers, I've either used personally, or heard lecture. And as we've discussed before, I've never personally taken it as a 'rule' either, but as a general guideline. Of course it depends on a lot of different factors, but as a general ballpark, an 'average', it's likely sound advice, IMO. 



> The first serious issue I have with this study is that they used out of shape horses. If you want to know how far a human can run without injury, you do NOT prevent them from running for 4 months,


I think you have totally missed the point here. I would assume this study was to determine an _average_, NOT the most that was possible. Your saying they should have started with fit horses is like saying.... they should base road/car speed limits(meant to be the _upper limit_ of what is safe on that bit of road) on how fast a racing car with special tyres, suspension, brakes, etc, without anyone else on the road, can manage safely. Rather than finding what is safe with an average car, when the road may be wet, or visibility imperfect.... or whatever, is the more normal, average state of affairs.



> This was viewed as "bad" - something riders NEED to prevent. It was viewed as harmful by the researchers! ...
> But here is what Runner's World says happens when we exercise: .... _Recovery from the workout and good hydration will usually take care of this issue. ... This can be greatly, and potentially dangerously, elevated by strenuous exercise._


Perhaps I totally misinterpretted your quoted bit from runners world, but it sounds to me like they also think it's a _potential_ 'issue' and can be _dangerously elevated_.



> This indicates horses, without exercise, retain the ability to carry weights up to 25% of their own WITHOUT THEIR BLOOD SHOWING THE NORMAL RESULTS OF EXERCISE!


Yep, that sure sounds like that is the finding of that particular factor.

So, I do agree, from what you've shared of this particular study, it's sort of... neither here nor there. Doesn't really seem to tell much, except that it seems carrying over 25-30% bwt is likely bad for an average unfit horse.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> I think another important factor is what the ride will consist of. ... The 20% rule would say I shouldn't even get on him. But that is wrong.


It _might_ be wrong, just as taking anything as a hard & fast rule, without consideration, without understanding the different factors is almost invariably 'wrong' in at least some situations. Just like, for eg. you shouldn't start a horse when they're 2-3yo, that riding immature bones & joints is damaging. Yes, I do believe it is indeed _as a rule_ But if you're just going to sit on the horse for 5 minutes, or you're a particularly lightweight & not doing anything strenuous on the horse or... whatever, then it can be perfectly fine. That's not to say it's a good move to 'throw out' the _guideline_ that it is potentially damaging to ride immature horses.



> I guess the root problem is you cannot teach people to treat horses as living creatures. Too many riders make riding all about themselves and won't ask, "_Is my horse ready - mentally, emotionally and physically - for the task today?_"


Yes, absolutely. And too many people hear statements, be they from 'studies' or just opinions or otherwise, and take them on blind faith, as hard & fast rules that must not be broken. 

But from what I've seen from you on the note of 'the 20% thing' is that you have longwindedly & emphatically argued, every time it's come up, that horses can cope with significantly heavier weights & it's stupid to say they can't. Which has come across as you taking it as a hard & fast rule that it is just wrong.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

loosie said:


> but as a general ballpark, an 'average', it's likely sound advice, IMO.


Um....why? Because it clearly is NOT "average". It is what an unfit horse can do without actually exercising. What an unfit horse can do without doing anything to make the horse stronger. It is merely average for an unfit horse whose rider doesn't care to improve!



loosie said:


> Doesn't really seem to tell much, except that it seems carrying over 25-30% bwt is likely bad for an average unfit horse.


Quite the contrary. EXERCISE IS NOT BAD. Not for horses. Not for humans. You might as well say that if unfit humans can only run 1/4 mile without stress, then there is no benefit to trying to run further.

It goes to the heart of a major flaw in the study. They assume horses should never be pushed beyond their comfort zone. That pushing them into physical stress is harmful! But if we want fit horses, then we MUST push them beyond their comfort zone - just as we must push ourselves. Assuming most horses don't freely range across miles, riding is where horses get the exercise that makes & keeps them healthy. It isn't bad. It is GOOD. The only requirements are not to do too much too soon too long, and to give them an adequate recovery time. Just as with humans.



loosie said:


> But from what I've seen from you on the note of 'the 20% thing' is that you have longwindedly & emphatically argued, every time it's come up, that horses can cope with significantly heavier weights & it's stupid to say they can't. Which has come across as you taking it as a hard & fast rule that it is just wrong.


It is often taught & preached as a hard and fast rule, to the point some say riding at a heavier weight is animal abuse. And it honestly IS flat out wrong. The people who did the study drew the wrong conclusions from their study, and most who now quote the rule have no idea it is made up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------​"_A survey in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour found that very few riders are aware that it is recommended that a rider weighs about 10% of the horses weight and that the rider should not exceed 15% of the horses weight._ "



http://horse-clips.co.uk/2013/03/are-you-the-right-weight-for-your-horse/



"_To that end, an industry practitioner proposed a 10 per cent rider-to-horse ratio for optimum performance, up to 15 per cent as satisfactory and a level of 20 per cent to be a potential welfare issue. Just 5 per cent of the riders involved in the study met the optimum threshold. Thirty-two per cent of the riders weighed more than 15 per cent of the weight of their animal, which is considered to pose a potential welfare risk._"









The great weight debate: How heavy is too heavy? - Horsetalk.co.nz


Weighty questions arise in the debate around the load-bearing ability of horses.




www.horsetalk.co.nz





"_RoR’s policy states that “as a general guide”, the weight of rider and saddle should be no more than 17% of the horse’s optimum bodyweight, “consistent with a body condition score of 3/5”. It adds that this means a 500kg thoroughbred can carry up to 13.5 stone._"









RoR to disqualify overweight riders at shows - Horse & Hound


Riders deemed to be too heavy for their mounts will be disqualified, and the judge's decision will be final




www.horseandhound.co.uk


----------



## AragoASB (Jul 12, 2020)

I like this reasonable explaination. 









How much weight should a horse carry? - Balanced Motion Vet


One question asked a lot is exactly how much weight should a horse carry? Now usually this is asked by someone watching a larger individual get on a small horse and ride the living daylights out of the poor little thing, as was seen in this picture of an overweight lady riding a mini. Story



balancedmotionvet.com


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

AragoASB said:


> When the backside of the rider is the same width as the backside of the horse something is wrong with this picture.


Hahahaha!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> Um....why? Because it clearly is NOT "average". It is what an unfit horse can do without actually exercising. What an unfit horse can do without doing anything to make the horse stronger. It is merely average for an unfit horse whose rider doesn't care to improve!


Um... yes, obviously what an unfit horse can do - that is precisely my point - NOT taking a trained athlete's ability as an average. And who's 'average' are you talking about?? It sounds like you're saying that's not average in your personal experience, & of course, many people do work their horses harder & more regularly & compete & need them fit, but perhaps you don't realise, many don't. It IS INDEED average for myself & very many people I have dealt with over the years, for eg. Be it due to lack of time(me since having kids, until recent years), or lack of desire - many people only WANT to ride a couple times a week for an hour or few. 

So again, should we take the 'average' ability of an athlete, or army soldier, as the guideline of what anyone 'should' be able to do? Like me when I was farrier-fit, able to easily lift 25kg per hand, should we expect everyone my size to do that, just because I could do it easily?? For that matter, should we expect me to do that now, when I've got out of shape... That's what it sounds like you're saying, when you go on about horses being able to carry vastly heavier weights.



> Quite the contrary. EXERCISE IS NOT BAD. Not for horses. Not for humans. You might as well say that if unfit humans can only run 1/4 mile without stress, then there is no benefit to trying to run further.


We are talking weightbearing, not exercise/fitness, but it seems you're putting that all under one banner. 



> It goes to the heart of a major flaw in the study. They assume horses should never be pushed beyond their comfort zone.


Yeah, as said, I haven't seen that study, so only going '3rd hand' from what you've told. If the above is what they do actually assume, then of course, I agree with you. If however, they're talking of pushing that comfort zone _significantly_, and not gradually - eg. if you don't get a horse fit, just lump it with significantly heavier weight, that is likely to be problematic. Which sounds like something no one seems to be disagreeing about.



> It is often taught & preached as a hard and fast rule, to the point some say riding at a heavier weight is animal abuse. And it honestly IS flat out wrong.


To the first sentence, as said, I for one am not saying that in the least, or disagreeing with that being a bad idea. Perhaps I missed something earlier, but I'm not getting what's 'flat out wrong'?



> "_A survey in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour found that very few riders are aware that it is recommended that a rider weighs about 10% of the horses weight and that the rider should not exceed 15% of the horses weight._ " ...
> "_To that end, an industry practitioner proposed a 10 per cent rider-to-horse ratio for optimum performance, up to 15 per cent as satisfactory and a level of 20 per cent to be a potential welfare issue._


 

What? You've lost me - What's your point in quoting those bits?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

loosie said:


> Um... yes, obviously what an unfit horse can do - that is precisely my point - NOT taking a trained athlete's ability as an average....So again, should we take the 'average' ability of an athlete, or army soldier, as the guideline of what anyone 'should' be able to do?


Lots of room between "unfit" and "trained athlete". Lots of us live our lives between those extremes. I'm neither unfit, nor an army soldier or athlete. My horse will never be competition fit, but that is a vastly higher standard.



loosie said:


> Be it due to lack of time(me since having kids, until recent years), or lack of desire - many people only WANT to ride a couple times a week for an hour or few.


The horses in the study were not ridden for 4 months, then ridden 45 minutes every 14 days. Not a couple times a week. If you ride a few times a week, the horse can gain strength and maintain it.



loosie said:


> We are talking weightbearing, not exercise/fitness, but it seems you're putting that all under one banner.


 Weight bearing IS dependent on exercise. That is why a fat horse or emaciated horse cannot carry as much weight. Particularly when discussing weight on the back. While conformation plays a part - a short back is structurally stronger than a long back - for any given horse's genetics, how much they are exercised will play a big role in how much weight they can bear, and how long. Anyone who has carried a backpack knows you don't start of doing 30 mile hikes with an 80 lb bag. And also knows that what one can carry the first time you try is smaller than what one can reasonably do with a bit of practice and exercise.



loosie said:


> What? You've lost me - What's your point in quoting those bits?


The 20% Rule has no foundation in science or experience, but others are already saying it is not restrictive enough. Many, largely in UK organizations, are pushing to have riding at 20% classified as abuse, and claim horses can only humanely be ridden at 15%. Or maybe 10%. Might as well stop the insanity at 20% because it is already obvious that millions of people DO ride above 20%, all the time, without harming their horse.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Here is an example of a study showing something quite different from the 2008 study:
_
Previous work by Garlinghouse and Burrill (1999) observed that
while rider weight, and rider weight relative to the body weight of the horse had no effect on
performance during 160-km endurance races, condition score had a significant effect on
completion rate. The study also observed that body weight of the horse had an effect on
performance, in that as weight increased, so did incidence of failure due to lameness. The
purpose of this study was to further validate and add to previous knowledge (Garlinghouse and
Burrill) regarding the effects of several body measurements on endurance performance.....

Rider weight independent of the animal BW had no effect on completion rate, or on overall
placing. Among disqualified horses, rider weight had no effect on miles completed prior to
elimination. This is in contrast to traditionally held beliefs, but agrees with previously published
data collected at this same event (Garlinghouse and Burrill). Although work by Pagan and Hintz
(1986) demonstrated that energy requirements increase with weight load, the relatively low
intensity of sustained exercise during endurance competition may mitigate the substrate
depletion and lactate accumulation observed in high intensity exercise. The results of this study
would suggest that horses in good condition are capable of carrying relatively heavy loads,
whether as rider weight or in their own body weight, over a 160-km course without the
deleterious physiological effects seen in maximal exercise.

Body weight of the horse had an effect in that as body weight increased, failure due to lameness
increased. Mean cannon bone circumference measurements of 19.25±.71 cm were similar to
values of 18.83±.66 cm reported in Garlinghouse and Burrill. Circumference did not increase
proportionately as body mass increased. These results suggest that increased body weight
without a proportionate increase in the cross sectional area of the metacarpus increase the
incidence of exercise-induced trauma and biomechanical failure. 

The RW/BW [rider's weight as a proportion of the horse's body weight]
for animals disqualified for metabolic failure was higher than those that completed
the race. This would appear to support traditionally held beliefs that horses cannot successfully
carry rider weights in excess of a given percentage of the horse BW, yet this is not supported by
RW or BW results. There was also no effect of RW/BW on overall placing. Therefore, it would
appear that the effect of RW/BW on metabolic failure is a function of decreasing CS [body condition score] in some
animals, rather than an inability to carry heavier weights relative to BW.

Conclusions

*The results of this study confirm that rider weight, either independent of, or relative to the animal
BW is not a critical factor in predicting performance during a 160-km endurance competition.*
BW was also not a factor in horses disqualified for metabolic failure, but did have an effect on
lameness_.



http://www.taunusreiter.de/TevisStudy1998.pdf


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Those are some really good points about the body weight study.

I want to point out regarding the second study that there seems to be a good weight range for endurance horses. Some people think thin and light is good, but those horses have more metabolic issues. But overweight is also bad for lameness issues.
Basically, horses that are healthy normal (and fit) do well.

I agree the first study was flawed due to testing unfit horses. Poor horses. If a horse of mine had four months off I'd think a 20 minute walk was a good start. I am amazed at the exercise tolerance shown.

As was mentioned, CK will always elevate with strenuous exercise, as will lactate. Very high levels go along with exceeding current fitness. So those unfit horses could have been taken out for a 20 minute gallop with 115 lb jockeys and their labs would have "proven" that 115 lbs was too much weight for them to carry.

Sometimes people mention things like building up a horse's back muscles to carry a rider, for example some trainers will not do a sitting trot at first.

But I think it is common to think of our backs and horse's backs as spines rather than major muscle powerhouses. Our backs have 40 muscles. Yet there is all kinds of advice such as avoid using your back so you don't get micro-tears...what? If you never cause micro-tears in your back muscles, you can never get a stronger back. If you look at a pic of a weightlifter, and see their spine embedded in a channel of strong muscle, they built that muscle by using their back muscles progressively more and more.

Horses are the same. We all have an amount of weight that is beyond what we can carry without hurting ourselves. But we also can build up our fitness level quite a lot with training.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I suspect the folks arguing for a 10%, 15% or 20% rule believe a horse's SPINE supports a rider's weight, not the muscles around the spine. I am totally convinced the muscles carry the weight, not the bone. The back of a starved, emaciated horse may be incapable of carrying 50 lbs, but groceries and exercise can change that.

Jean Luc Cornille's summarizes back research:

"In 1976 was also when Hans Carlson demonstrated that *the main function of the back muscles was not to increase the range of movement of the horse’s vertebral column,* as suggested in the video as well as in the show ring*, but at the contrary, to protect the vertebral column from movements exceeding the thoracolumbar spine’s possible range of motion*. Uneducated riders argue that the study was made on cats. Carlson’s study was effectively effectuated on cats, which demonstrates in fact, that visual impressions can easily lead to the wrong perception. Multiple studies have then been done duplicating the same protocol and the findings were similar with horses and most terrestrial mammals. Basically, all the theories promoting better performances and gaits through stretching and greater amplitude of the horse’s vertebral column movements are in direct contradiction with the way the horse’s vertebral column and surrounding muscles are designed to work."

"*the main function of the back muscles was...to protect the vertebral column from movements exceeding the thoracolumbar spine’s possible range of motion*."






Equine Back Research


History of Equine Back Research Studies by Jean Luc Cornille




www.scienceofmotion.com





If riders are supported by MUSCLE, not BONE, then how much a horse can carry will be heavily influenced by exercise and weight-lifting. And the best weight lifting for a horse's back would be to carry progressively heavier riders. That isn't an option for most of us, so it then becomes a matter of gradually increasing duration and difficulty of the ride. And understanding that if a horse is never ridden by someone over 100 lbs, they may not be ready - be potentially capable but not ready - to carry a 200 lb rider. Or 250 b rider.

And if muscle is what supports a rider's weight, then blood work demonstrating weight-strengthening exercise at 30% is a good thing. The amazing thing, to me, is that *even out of shape horses didn't produce that blood work until at 30%!* The researchers considered the blood chemistry proof of harm instead of proof of helpful exercise. I suspect they ignored the fundamentals of weight lifting because they didn't consider it from the viewpoint of a horse lifting a weight!

PS: @QtrBel brought up a formula that included the thickness of the cannon bone. I like that because much of the stress of riding occurs, not in the back, but in the legs. Increasing weight, including the combined weights of horse and rider, subjects the legs and joints to higher impact spikes. The thicker the bone, the more structural support for those forces. It makes mechanical sense: the beams supporting a bridge need to be thick enough to do so.

PSS: I've mentioned Bandit running 10-15 mile training legs with a 265+ lb rider. A total weight of around 300 lbs of rider and tack on a below 800 lb horse. I've had that dismissed as "anecdotal evidence". But the sample used in this often cited study was 8 horses, and the time frame was a few months of twice a month riding. That sample makes it "anecdotal" as well. I do worry about Bandit. Mostly about his knees. His back, after 5 1/2 years of riding him, seems fine. I've also been told I'm not qualified to say that, that horses are stoic and I'm too ignorant to know Bandit is in pain. But after 5+ years together, I know Bandit far better than most horse researchers know their subject horses. We talk all the time while riding. He often complains about something, but not about his back....

PSSS: A thought provoking exercise. Do a one arm bicep curl with a heavy dumbbell. Feel your body. What supports the weight? It isn't your spine. You will feel the muscles on the stressed side of your body tense, providing a muscular column of support for the weight.


----------



## AragoASB (Jul 12, 2020)

TB race horses are big and they are fit athletes. Jockys are very light. Why is that?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Why are jockeys light? Because in a one mile race, the winner may win by a few inches. At that level of competition, one needs every advantage one can get. Just like competitive runners who wear race shoes to save a few ounces or swimmers who shave their body hair. A 200 lb jockey wouldn't injure the horse, but he wouldn't WIN either.


----------



## AragoASB (Jul 12, 2020)

Still, Jocky weight has a lot to do with it.Race horses perform better with less weight.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

A horse with a rider works harder than a horse without. And a horse with a tiny rider works less than a horse with a heavier rider. That has nothing to do with what a horse can carry without being abused. The stress of carrying a rider is simply exercise. Something one works up to, then does often enough to maintain a level of fitness. A fat horse standing around in a stall or corral is not a good thing. ANY horse just standing around all day is not a good thing. Just as sitting on a couch is less stressful to my body over the short term, but deadly to me over the long term. This life-long jogger HATES the first 1/4 mile of a run. Sometimes the first 1/2 mile. And I don't think I've ever smiled while doing a pull-up! But exercise is good for me. I need it. And so do most horses.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> Lots of room between "unfit" and "trained athlete". Lots of us live our lives between those extremes. I'm neither unfit, nor an army soldier or athlete. My horse will never be competition fit, but that is a vastly higher standard.
> The horses in the study were not ridden for 4 months, then ridden 45 minutes every 14 days. Not a couple times a week. If you ride a few times a week, the horse can gain strength and maintain it.


Which is precisely my point. Takes all sorts, so it's silly to assume that because a fit horse can do something...



> Weight bearing IS dependent on exercise.


Yes, of course it is. Which again, is precisely my point, when you're going on about horses being unfit...



> The 20% Rule has no foundation in science or experience, but others are already saying it is not restrictive enough.


I see what you're saying. And as said, I for one, don't take it as a 'rule'. I don't actually know of anyone who does. And yeah, there will always be fanatical, unrealistic PETA types that think everything is 'abusive'...


----------



## AragoASB (Jul 12, 2020)

When I was a fit 120 lb teenager I carried a 30 lb backpack for twenty miles. It just about killed me.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

AragoASB said:


> When I was a fit 120 lb teenager I carried a 30 lb backpack for twenty miles. It just about killed me.


I think you're saying that is 25% of your body weight. But did you work up to the distance being hiked progressively, and the weight being carried progressively? 

The point is not being "fit," but rather trained for what you are doing. I can run six miles regularly and then go downhill skiing. My cardio will be in shape, but my legs will soon get rubbery. 

We could lunge our horses until they were fit to gallop two miles. But that won't increase the load carrying capacity of their back muscles. 
Someone who lifts weights for an hour each day might be able to lift and carry hay bales effortlessly but struggle with fatigue slowly jogging a 5k (seen that one in person).

Load carrying can be great for horses' fitness. Trying to keep it minimal may not always be best, because done thoughtfully it can help maximize a workout. Some people have their dogs carry packs for this reason.
My cousin trained for Everest by carrying a heavy pack up and down a steep mountain trail in Oregon. He was told he started with the best fitness level on his team (and he summited).


----------

