# Am I too big for my horse?



## SarahStorms

I don't think you look to big for her at all. I actually think yall look like a good match! 

Beautiful horse.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum

I agree with Sarah! You guys look like a perfect match.


----------



## karliejaye

I think you look like a good match! She is absolutely gorgeous. The nice, substantial build I like!


----------



## chesnutred

Thank you SO MUCH guys!! You've been a really big help!! It looks like I may have myself a beautiful new girl it would seem!! Thanks guys!! ??


----------



## blue eyed pony

I think those shirts don't flatter you at all and with that in mind I suspect you're smaller than these photos make you look.

Additionally, the lovely mare in question looks quite short-coupled and, while perhaps a touch light in bone, doesn't look to be a horse that will have difficulty with carrying heavier riders than yourself at all in the long term. She has lovely big feet so likely won't be prone to navicular problems.

The heavier the rider the more important correct saddle fit becomes so that will be something to keep in mind. Not saying saddle fit isn't important for small riders too (my 110lb has sored a horse's back because a saddle we had professionally fitted had been fitted wrong). It's just that correct weight distribution becomes even more important as the weight gets higher.

I think you're smaller than my mother who rides a 14.3hh pony so a 15.1hh Holsteiner won't struggle with you at all.


----------



## anndankev

I particularly like the first picture.

I agree about those type of tank tops. Good post BEP.


----------



## bsms

Looks like you'll have some fun times ahead. Enjoy!


----------



## chesnutred

Thank you so much everyone for all the replys! Well I took my girl out on the trails today and she jogged the entire time just itching to run, and didn't want to go home so I'm guessing she's got no problem carrying me! LOL
I'm really happy with her, she's got no off button! :-D


----------



## tinyliny

if you decide against that mare, can I have her? I'm 200 lbs, but I think I'd be ok on her. does that help?


----------



## chesnutred

I'm 220 right now...but thanks. <3
And no you can't have her....she's mine mine mine!!!! :-D


----------



## blue eyed pony

I was right, you are smaller than my mum - she's 240 - and her pony has no trouble with her so your lovely girl will be just fine


----------



## texas cowgurl

I don't think you're too big. Good match! I don't see how she would have a problem carrying your weight.


----------



## aquariusw

You look great on her!


----------



## BearPony

Looks like a lovely solid mare with a nice short back and strong build - well suited to your height and weight. I bet you will be a great team!


----------



## AladdinAVR

I ride a haffie who is 14.3hh and I have a big butt. He is built like a S.B.H xD no worries here as I have spent money on Chiro, massage and saddle fitting and they told me nadda wrong. Which relieves me because I feel I am WAY too big for him all the time.


----------



## WhattaTroublemaker

I'm 200 pounds too! I prefer shorter horses, I hit the ground hard now, and it's a lot less space to cover if I fall! My ideal height is 14-14.2 hands and always thought 15+ was HUGE. You look beautiful on that mare. I do have a question though, for everyone else. Riding bareback, is it better or worse for a heavier rider? I have a lot of cushion to spread my weight out LOL compared to lighter riders with bony butts. Thoughts?


----------



## gottatrot

WhattaTroublemaker said:


> Riding bareback, is it better or worse for a heavier rider? I have a lot of cushion to spread my weight out LOL compared to lighter riders with bony butts. Thoughts?


I think it would take pressure scans to say if it was better or worse. Most likely any benefit from added pressure distribution would be canceled out by the increase in force from a heavier rider.


----------



## GreySorrel

Ya'll can send me those taller horses...being 5'9", and about 203lbs, I prefer those tall her horses any day! 

OP you do look good on her, she is a nice mare and I am sure you will have a lot of fun with her. If I can suggest, maybe a saddle that is a bit bigger, but not much.


----------



## WhattaTroublemaker

gottatrot said:


> I think it would take pressure scans to say if it was better or worse. Most likely any benefit from added pressure distribution would be canceled out by the increase in force from a heavier rider.


Good point, let's just say it's about the same  plus it depends on rider balance, etc.


----------



## klstarrs

I think you look fine for average work, if you were going for high jumping and a lot of fast paced work you may be a bit on the heavy side for a fine/medium light build horse but trail rides, occasional show etc. I think you'll be fine.


----------



## rideprosperously

WhattaTroublemaker said:


> I'm 200 pounds too! I prefer shorter horses, I hit the ground hard now, and it's a lot less space to cover if I fall! My ideal height is 14-14.2 hands and always thought 15+ was HUGE. You look beautiful on that mare. I do have a question though, for everyone else. Riding bareback, is it better or worse for a heavier rider? I have a lot of cushion to spread my weight out LOL compared to lighter riders with bony butts. Thoughts?


LOL just because a rider is light does not mean the butt is bony, fat distribution is different for each person. I am 9.7 stones but my butt is far from bony, women tend to have more fat there than men as well. I wish my butt were slightly less fatty... I used to have a huge problem with tall horses, now I prefer taller ones, cuz they are USUALLY faster.


----------



## rideprosperously

She is slightly below average in terms of Holsteiner height, but that does not adversely affect her weight bearing capacity. From her body language, she did not seem unhappy. You're not too big for the horse when riding on the flat, but for jumps and long rides. To be honest with you though, we riders ought not only to improve our riding but also keep our weight in check for the health and welfare of both horse and rider. You don't look silly on the horse, but just a slight weight loss could improve the picture aesthetically. I hope I do not come off as mean, just trying to tell the truth without being rude.


----------



## Chaz80

hi guys, quick question... i weigh roughly 196 pound, i used to ride a 17.2 thoroughbred x,which was fine...(don't go to the riding school anymore)
my daughters pony is a 13.2-13.3 welsh c x weighs roughly 850..could she carry my weight? everybody says course she can shes a welsh...but i don't want to hurt her back!
heres a pic of me and chance...i have lost some weight since that pic was taken and the top does me no favours either lol.


----------



## rideprosperously

Chaz80 said:


> hi guys, quick question... i weigh roughly 196 pound, i used to ride a 17.2 thoroughbred x,which was fine...(don't go to the riding school anymore)
> my daughters pony is a 13.2-13.3 welsh c x weighs roughly 850..could she carry my weight? everybody says course she can shes a welsh...but i don't want to hurt her back!
> heres a pic of me and chance...i have lost some weight since that pic was taken and the top does me no favours either lol.


According to my calculation, the ideal max weight for an average 850lbs horse to carry is around 170lbs, so you are slightly over that line. It also depends on the horse's musculature and conformation. If she has conformation defect, she might not be able to carry your weight efficiently. You may try riding the pony for a bit and observe her body language or any other cue to see if she's feeling ok about it.


----------



## bsms

"_According to my calculation, the ideal max weight for an average 850lbs horse to carry is around 170lbs, so you are slightly over that line_."

That would be based on the "20% rule", which has no basis in fact. Some horses cannot safely carry that much, and some can carry much more. This thread debates the weight issue, and both sides are presented with vigor:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/am-i-too-big-his-horse-605666/


----------



## gottatrot

I would like to point out that it is difficult to know what "safely" carry a rider means. 
I always thought until several years ago that "safely" meant whether a rider would harm a horse's back, or whether a horse could balance the rider's weight while being ridden. 
I've come to learn that true "safety" includes pace, terrain, distance, and time. For instance, a short-backed small horse might carry a rider that is quite heavy at a walk or trot around an arena for quite some time pretty safely. However, if you take the horse out and ride him hard up and down hills, he might become fatigued to the point where a stumble might make him fall.

In my case, I let a very excellent, heavyweight rider on my 850 lb Arabian mare. The rider was at about 30% of the horse's weight. This horse has a short, strong back and did not seem to have difficulty balancing this heavy of a rider at the trot or canter. But the terrain was wrong. Even though we did not do a long or exhausting ride, when the horse slipped on a steep gravel downhill slope at the walk, she decided it was easier to drop to her knees than to try to heft herself and the heavy rider back up. This resulted in her sliding on her knees for several feet over gravel and denuding them, causing months of treatment and rehabilitation. If she'd slid a little farther the damage would have gotten into her tendon sheaths and probably ended her life.

Tough terrain with a small horse and a heavy rider could lead to potentially having a horse fall and roll over the rider. My friend was a good enough rider to sit quietly through the spill, remain upright and get off safely.

So I believe the weight ratio rules are very different depending on what you are doing with the horse and where you are riding. In my experience, I've never seen a horse have an issue with carrying 25% of their weight over even rough terrain, or on a long ride, but going over this is risky. 
I would consider the OP in a safe range.


----------



## rideprosperously

bsms said:


> "_According to my calculation, the ideal max weight for an average 850lbs horse to carry is around 170lbs, so you are slightly over that line_."
> 
> That would be based on the "20% rule", which has no basis in fact. Some horses cannot safely carry that much, and some can carry much more. This thread debates the weight issue, and both sides are presented with vigor:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/am-i-too-big-his-horse-605666/


It's based on the 20% rule, but the rule is not completely groundless. It's just a guideline, not a fixed box. That's why you're supposed to read the whole comment, not just the first sentence.


----------



## bsms

I think the 20% rule is utterly groundless. 

There was one study done on horses who were deliberately made to be out of riding shape. The horses were not ridden for 4 months. Then they were ridden 45 minutes every two weeks. Based on the blood markers, those out of shape horses could carry 25% of their body weight without a problem. Based on people giving horse massages, the people believed the horses carrying 25% had a little more soreness than those carrying 20%, so they recommended 20% as the limit. The possibility that a fit horse might carry much more, or that the massagers had a bias affecting their results (since the blood work was clean) wasn't considered.

It was a poor study, and it conflicts with what I see every time I ride - which is always at above 20%, and is normally right around 25%. It conflicts with what I saw a couple of weeks ago, when 850 lb Trooper carried a 6'6" guy who had never ridden before for 2.5 hours in the desert.

If you want a horse to max perform, then the lightest weight possible works. But lots of cow horses carry big guys for long hours working hard, and do so successfully.

I also agree with gottatrot. The weight limit is defined by more than just "will the horse be sore". When I put 200 lbs of me & saddle on 700 lb Cowboy (29%), Cowboy doesn't get sore. But he also has less reserve strength to call upon when going up a steep hill, or descending an uneven & rocky path, etc. Turning quickly at speed, my height (5'8") versus his height (13.0 hands) pulls him more off balance that a smaller rider would, or even a heavier saddle might. It is simply harder for him.

That doesn't mean I cannot ride Cowboy, but it does mean I need to be aware of what I'm asking of him. He can handle me fine for most of the trails near me. There are a couple of spots where I need to dismount. Not because he couldn't carry me there, but because any slip or stumble would over-task him in a way a larger horse would not be.


----------



## Saddlebag

A short-backed horse can carry your weight better than a draft. The draft's longer spine has to support a huge abdomen and innards. Just make sure the saddle you used doesn't extend past the last true rib on the Welsh. I used to ride my Shetland. She was a sturdy little thing with short coupling. I was 128lbs. It was bareback tho.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

The joints of people and animals have limits. Long term, short term, highly stressed activity on the joints (including twisting vs pounding), low impact activity on the joints, age of the subject….all need to be considered.

My SIL is an active duty (and currently deployed) US Marine. At 26 he is already aware that within three years he will not be able to do the same field work he is doing now because it has beat his body to blazes. “I will be fifty when I am thirty” he has stated. At 26 (below average height, though strong for his size) he is already feeling the aches and pains that most civilians won’t begin to feel for another 10-15 years.

I am very familiar with his statement. As a former elite professional athlete, I indeed felt 50 by the time I was thirty.In both of our cases it was of our own doing and we were willing to pay that price for doing what we loved. We both did things because we could, it didn’t mean we *should* have been doing them though! How much of both of our damages were due to over stressing our joints before we were finished physically maturing is another question to consider. 

IMO it is not outrageous or unfounded to say that added weight, especially beyond a certain point, stressing joints day in and out has a negative long term effect on our horses, they, like us, are flesh and blood. The 20% rule while not hard and fast, is a number to keep in mind for playing things safe long term.

Theoretically if we really were to have absolute concern for the long term health of our horses, we wouldn’t add any weight at all and wouldn’t ride them at all (that is another can of worms).

Perhaps my caution is due to my own experiences/sympathy for two of my ranch horses who got old before their time with joint considerations. It is both expensive and time consuming to deal with, so I do err on the side of caution.

That said, OP, as long as you are not going to be asking your horse to do highly stressful activities (that torque the joints), and since you are already aware that rider weight is something to be considered, I don’t see a problem with you riding this horse.


----------



## Golden Horse

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> The joints of people and animals have limits. Long term, short term, highly stressed activity on the joints (including twisting vs pounding), low impact activity on the joints, age of the subject….all need to be considered




I guess technically there should be different %'s quoted for different activities. A fit, well balanced low weight rider, completing a 3 day event, how much stress and strain on the joints of the horse with all those jumping efforts. There must be a multiplier of weight with landing from a height!

I would not ask my horse to jump with me, but flat work I'm comfortable with.


----------



## bsms

"_The 20% rule while not hard and fast, is a number to keep in mind for playing things safe long term._"

Except it is NOT. There is no evidence supporting the idea that 20% is "safe for joints" and 25% is not. With some horses - some of the halter bred QHs I've seen - I doubt 10% is safe. They don't look "safe for joints" without a rider!

There is no substitute for listening to your horse. At 25%, trail riding Bandit, I'm confident any additional wear to his joints is minimal. I do worry that past racing on a front left hoof that was shod wrong may have already damaged his front left leg. But my riding him a couple of hours, on trails, mostly at a walk (to preserve his bare feet from the rocks) won't add to any damage already there.

At 30% with Cowboy, if I get off when we need to go down a steep grade or when things are getting kind of stable, then he'll be fine. He'd probably be OK being ridden in those spots, but the risk of an accident goes up because I'm nearer his maximum capacity. And I know that by feeling his balance.

"_I guess technically there should be different %'s quoted for different activities._"

I agree with your point. 10% would probably be too much if I was asking Bandit to move like a reining horse. He isn't built for it. And with how he was using his front left leg when he arrived, and knowing he was raced long distances on it...10% might be too much for him if used as a jumper.

I am far to heavy to jump little 13 hand Cowboy, but he shows no sign of strain or resentment for 2 hours on a decent trail. If we stuck to dirt roads and good trails, he could carry me 3+ hours without a problem. But jumping, barrel racing, dressage, reining - not a chance!

Think of it in human terms. I can jog fine without a load at 57 years. Put 100 lbs of combat gear on me (as happened sometimes briefly when I was 49 in Afghanistan), and I'd break down in hours. Put my grandson on my shoulders and ask me to walk on a trail for 2 hours...doable. Once cannot divorce the weight limit from the activity and/or conformation of the horse.

Or to put it another way - would any of us suggest a 5'0" woman weighing 220 lbs could carry as much as a 6'4" 220 lb college athlete? We would ridicule anyone who suggested HUMANS could safely carry XX% of their weight without regard for their build, conditioning, activity. etc. So why would we believe it about horses?


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

BSMS,

I'll bite. 

This is an example of using common sense, I don't need a study to tell me how to do that. 

25% for a rider on a horse who is in shape and at an ideal weight is better than 10% on a horse that is obese. On the other hand if you stray into the 35%-40% range most riders would say that would be asking for trouble. Where is the study that proves that? Sometimes you just have use your noodle. 

I ride at 10-11% of my horse's weight. Maybe I should start adding 150 lbs extra weight to my saddle to get him up to 25%? Would that be a benefit to the horse or is he better off with things as they are?


----------



## bsms

"Maybe I should start adding 150 lbs extra weight to my saddle to get him up to 25%? Would that be a benefit to the horse or is he better off with things as they are?"

Honestly...don't know. It may be a rhetorical question, except it is not. Am I healthier if I lift weights and jog than if I do not lift weights and jog? Yes - to a point. I knew guys who ran competitively who stopped running in their 30s because they had broken down their knees. I'm jogging at 57 because I haven't - I jogged instead of running! But I also know a lot of couch potatoes who need more use to strengthen bones as well as muscle.

My horses are undoubtedly in better shape when ridden daily than they are right now. But they live in a corral. A horse who is ridden regularly will have a stronger back, but I doubt that stronger back adds to the horse's longevity. But a fitter horse might be a happier horse. I'm happier when fit than not.

My personal guess is that exercise is good as long as it stays within the range of motion our conformation allows. As an example, to run faster I need to stride longer. But a longer stride will start to hurt my knees. If I wear a shoe with a lot of shock absorption, I tend to stride too long and hurt my knees. With a "lesser" shoe, I keep my stride shorter and run a little slower but without injury.

I am uncomfortable with a lot of horse sports because when humans compete, horses lose. Competition says to push harder and harder, and the horse may not tell you his knees are sore afterwards. Or maybe not in a way the rider will understand.

Horses were made to walk lots, trot some and run a little. They can turn tight, but they are not made for tight turns, spinning, sliding stops or jumping huge jumps. That they CAN do it is not the same as that they SHOULD do it - although they will if we ask.

They can easily adapt to carrying a rather heavy load on their backs IF we let them adjust - which they do by going a little slower and keeping each hoof on the ground a little longer. The AMOUNT of weight we ask a horse to carry doesn't, by itself, bother me as much as what we ask a horse to do WHILE carrying it.


----------



## gingerscout

look with my western saddle and the weight of my butt I am at roughly 300 pounds... I have never had a horse complain, or anyone for that matter tell me to get off their horse, but I am upfront with my weight ahead of time, its either a yes or no from them, if they say NO I get over it, part of the reason I have NEVER ridden in an English saddle, even as much as I have wanted to learn in the past.. someone my size should only ride a couch according to every English barn I inquired at. My boy is 15.1 and had a smaller/ medium buiild when I got him, and was 1000 pounds, he has muscled up and is over 1100 now, but he is always happy to go for a ride, if I don't close the barn up he will untie himself and beat me to the mounting block and wait for me. He seems to enjoy his job, and after 6 months of riding the vet said he looks good under me, and he has never been sore, I rode him on a 4 hr trail ride earlier this year up/ down hills etc, and at the end of the ride he was the least sweaty horse of the group. Granted 99% of the time, I just walk/ trot on level ground for 45 min or so 2-3 times a week, not like I am asking him to carry me 8 hours a day 7 days a week..lol


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

BSMS and Gingerscout both of what you have posted is part of the consideration.

30% but I mostly only walk trot on gentle slopes and no tight turns a couple of days a week for a few miles....that is one thing.

30% but I am going to be running 3D barrels all out and doing sliding stops with reining etc. is another.

So start with 20% and plus or minus given an individual situation. Terrible balance vs good seat, condition age and health of the horse, terrain, all of those things can play into whether 10% or 30% can be appropriate.

Trust me, I get the need to individualize each situation. 

At 100 lbs and 18 year old girl I was benching 220 lbs but I looked deceptively like a waif that a good breeze would take out. I never actually trained for that sort of thing, it just was. Should have not been possible according to most. 

My oldest daughter is training for National Power lifting Competition at 5'3 and 120 lbs she is deadlifting 325. As best I can figure there is something strange in our genes that makes us stronger than normal given our size.....but, I also paid a price for all of that 10 years on and I am cautioning my daughter at this point, but it is her passion. 

Since the horses can't always tell us when the little aches and pains start, considered thought is all I am recommending.


----------



## bsms

"So start with 20% and plus or minus given an individual situation."

Why start with 20%? Why not 15%? Or 10%? Or 23.4%? There are people recommending anyone requiring a horse to carry over 15% is animal abuse!

The figure twenty is not based on anything real. It is like saying a human can carry bench press 75% of their body weight safely as a guideline. Who would recommend that? Why would anyone think a certain percentage of body weight is a rationale rule to use in determining how much a human can lift?

The joint of a leg can handle X weight without damage. That weight will be based on things like bone density (which we do not know, normally) and cross-section. X amount of weight includes both horse and rider, so for a given cross section, the heavier the horse, the less the rider can weigh without overloading the joint.

The 1999 Tevis Cup study found:_Rider weight independent of the animal body weight 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)...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 [percentage method] 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 body weight, yet this is not supported by [the rider weight] or [horse body weight] results. There was also no effect of [rider weight/horse body weight] on overall placing. Therefore, it would appear that the effect of [rider weight/horse body weight] on metabolic failure is a function of decreasing condition score in some animals, rather than an inability to carry heavier weights relative to [horse body weight]._

_ Conclusions_

_ The results of this study confirm that rider weight, either independent of, or relative to the animal bodyweight is not a critical factor in predicting performance during a 160-km endurance competition. [Horse body weight] was also not a factor in horses disqualified for metabolic failure, but did have an effect on lameness._"​It makes sense that increasing the total weight faster than the cross section increases would increase damage to the joints. It would also explain why an Arabian might carry a heavier percentage of his body weight safely than a draft could.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

As usual there are different studies with different conclusions, which leads a lot of people scratching their heads..... 

"While carrying a single heavy rider on a one-day ride is not likely to seriously harm a horse, over the years, a consistent regimen of this sort of work could add up to chronic injury.....It's possible that chronic overwork leads to many tiny microfractures, which can build up to a catastrophic break......There is no definitive answer largely because there is no way to define the limits of safety. Obviously, a horse who staggers under a pack is overloaded. But that doesn't mean that a horse who seems able to bear a heavy load is not accruing "silent" injury that will manifest years later as early arthritis or a sudden unexpected breakdown.

- See more at: How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry? | EQUUS Magazine


----------



## gingerscout

I just personally get tired of all the people telling me I should go find another hobby, and not try to get out and be active


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Oh no! Please don't think I'm suggesting that at all!

I got tired of people telling me I was too short for basketball and too slightly built to play ice hockey with the men too, so I get it. It didn't stop me, I just had to make adjustments and think of ways to make it work. 

As long as you are considering the horse and doing what you can to watch for potential problems, I have no problem with larger people riding. 

Where I have caught myself shaking my head is when I saw a very large woman riding a little Arabian, she was making the poor thing canter and it kept dropping out of gait after a couple of minutes at which point she was cussing at it while whipping it. She appeared to have no regard whatsoever for the horse and no consideration that her weight might be why the horse couldn't hold gait for long. 

No one here seems to be like that at all, so ride on!


----------



## bsms

"...a consistent regimen of this sort of work *could* add up to chronic injury.....It's *possible* that chronic overwork leads to many tiny microfractures, which *can* build up to a catastrophic break."

IOW, we have no evidence, but we assert.

From the article you cite (which is a good one, BTW):

"_"The increase in your metabolism is directly proportional to the increase in the weight," Wickler explains. "So if you add 10 percent of your body weight, your costs go up 10 percent." Each additional pound added to the load produces a corresponding increase in the metabolic effort required to move that load--and that's over level ground_."

MY metabolic rate goes up when I jog. That is WHY I jog - because increasing my metabolic rate increases my aerobic conditioning. And weight lifting increases my ability to handle weight, and strengthens my bones. Good stuff!

"_Not surprisingly, the additional weight caused horses to move more slowly, reducing speed from about 7.4 mph to about 7 mph. "Not only does their metabolic rate go up, but their preferred speed goes down," Wickler says, adding that the most important finding was that the horses' preferred speed was the most economical in terms of moving a given distance with that added weight._"

So...horses adapt. *IF* we let them. But if we insist they move even faster while carrying a heavy load, we will create a lot of additional stress.

"_Carrying a load caused the horses to leave their feet on the ground an average of 7.7 percent longer than they did while trotting unburdened. On the level, the addition of a load caused the swing phase of the stride to become 3 percent shorter, but going uphill this phase of stride lasted 6 percent longer.

In short, explains Wickler, carrying a load causes a horse to shorten his stride, leave his feet on the ground longer and increase the distance his body travels (the "step length") with each stride. All of these gait adjustments work together to reduce the forces placed on the legs with each step. "Forces are damaging," says Wickler, "so keeping the foot on the ground reduces peak forces and reduces that potential for injury._"

This is exactly what I was referencing earlier - if allowed, horses adapt just as we do, by leaving their feet on the ground a little longer to reduce the stress on their bodies. I do the same if you place an 80 lb feed sack on one shoulder.

"_Fitness training increases and strengthens both muscle and bone, improving the horse's reserve for absorbing the stresses of exertion, but at the extremes of equine athleticism cumulative stresses can be significant_."

I agree. Riding can increase fitness, and will - unless it is over done. And thus my comment "_Horses were made to walk lots, trot some and run a little. They can turn tight, but they are not made for tight turns, spinning, sliding stops or jumping huge jumps. That they CAN do it is not the same as that they SHOULD do it - although they will if we ask._"

Rather than tell heavy people to get a heavy horse (which can be counterproductive), maybe we should tell them ride at a walk lots, trot some and run a little. Maybe we should tell everyone to condition their horse, and treat a week-end horse like a week-end athlete. If a horse acts like it doesn't WANT to do dressage, or jumping, or barrel racing, maybe we should tell folks to listen.

As for rules of thumb, this does not sound too difficult or unfair:
Measurement Test 
1. Add up the total weight of the horse, rider and tack. (See TGH Summer 1998, page 37.) 
Our example: Damascus, Lady + tack = 1188 pounds. 
2. Measure the circumference of the cannon bone midway between the knee and fetlock. 
Our example: Damascus, 7.5 inches. 
3. Divide this total weight by the circumference. 
Our example: 1188 ÷ 7.5 = 158.4 
3. Divide the result by two. 
Our example: 158.4 ÷ 2 = 79.2 

Values near 75 are great, below 75, even better. Values from 75/80 are acceptable. Values over 80 indicate weaker legs and a need to train carefully, especially downhill. Values over 85 suggest you need a horse with more substance. 

Heavier Riders' Guide​









At least in that case I can understand WHY the thickness of the leg compared to total weight might be important.

I just did that with Bandit. Assuming a weight of 800 lbs, and 160 for me, and 40 lbs for tack and clothing, his 7.5 inch circumference gives:

1000/7.5 = 133.3, which then divided by 2 gives 66.7.

If I assume Bandit is 850, and my string was not tight enough and the real circumference was 7.0, I'd get 

1050/7 = 150, divided by 2 gives 75 - well in their acceptable range.

Working it in reverse, 80 times 2 is 160, times 7.5 equals 1200 total before getting into unacceptable range. Could I put 400 lbs on him? Maybe his LEGS would stand it, but not his back! But Bandit's legs are probably good enough for our trail riding...unless his previous racing combined with poor shoeing did damage. If so, it might not appear until 15 years from now...:icon_rolleyes:


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

I'm glad you found the article informative!


----------



## rideprosperously

Saddlebag said:


> A short-backed horse can carry your weight better than a draft. The draft's longer spine has to support a huge abdomen and innards. Just make sure the saddle you used doesn't extend past the last true rib on the Welsh. I used to ride my Shetland. She was a sturdy little thing with short coupling. I was 128lbs. It was bareback tho.


Yea, you're right, shorter back means higher weight carrying efficiency, but draft makes up for that with raw power. The draft's abdomen should be assessed in terms of ratio not just size. Any horse that's overweight or obese would have a ratio that adversely affects its weight carrying ability. A draft that's not overweight should be able to carry a lot of weight.


----------



## WhattaTroublemaker

Bsms- I did that chart with trouble and got some crazy results! He always had thick legs- which is why I bought him. At two year old he's got a canon circumference of 8.6 inches. I ended up at 55 on the scale. I was always terrified of being too large for him, since he's only 14.2 hands, 700-750 pounds and I'm 200 pounds. But according to the chart he should carry me plus my tack just fine!


----------



## WhattaTroublemaker

Also- it's never too late to incorporate a conditioning program to YOU, too. Whenever I was doing jogs with my boy I'd jog with him. If we were round penning, I'd run along with him, jumping his poles and stretching like he does between them. I'd also do sit ups with him standing at my feet, with a handful of carrots in my hand. Since he knew better to step on me he would stretch his neck down nicely when I sat back, and get a bit of carrot when I sat up. Repeat repeat repeat until I was tuckered out. :lol:


----------



## Captain Evil

According to the chart, my old Percheron could barely carry himself, never mind a passenger. And the chart doesn't take into account his rather long back. He weighed about 1600 pounds and his front cannon measured 10.5. My saddle weighs 33 pounds plus thick pad, maybe 2 pounds? and I weigh 135 (fighting fit) so let's say 140. 

That adds up to 1775, divided by his cannon bone equals 169, divided by 2 equals 84.5: not good, and borderline bad. without any tack or rider he comes in at 76+.

But I really liked the article... interesting stuff.


----------

