# Am I too big to ride my own horse?



## Vendetta12

I'm 5'9''-5'10'' and as of now I weigh in at about 294lbs (yeesh), which would mean I've lost 14lbs in 3 weeks (YAY!). Currently I'm riding a 15.3hh tank of a Quarter horse named Cowboy, but I'd like to ride my own horse. I own a 16hh ASB. Although he is considered stocky (to be a Saddlebred) he is also out of shape and too skinny. I currently do not have an English saddle so if I do ride him it will be western. So my question is am I too big for him? I do plan on lunging him to help build up his back and obviously putting weight on him. Does anyone have any ground exercises to build up his topline, rear and shoulders? Thanks in advance!


----------



## tinyliny

you might not like my opinion, but in my opinion, 294 lbs, plus the weight of the saddle, is too much for even a stocky qh. and, if it's any consolation to you, I am at 210 and consider myself edging into being too heavy for hard riding on the 15 3 hh horse I ride.


----------



## greentree

Here is the story I tell everybody......

On my first endurance ride, the top 2 finishers showed for best condition, where they weigh rider with tack, and use that as part of the winning formula. The girl who won weighed 102, and the man in second weighed 410. He rides Arabians who probably don't weigh 975 lbs, 50 miles, and comes in top 10. 

He lost some weight, but still weighed in at 310. He is 6'4". 

I see nothing wrong with you riding.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum

I'm 5'7" and 230lbs (down from 260lbs since February!). I rode my best friend's 14.3hh tank of a QH mare the other day with a western saddle and didn't feel bad about it. Tink even did some trotting with me and never broke a sweat. I wouldn't even feel bad riding her 15.3hh TB gelding, who is more slightly built (fairly typical rangy TB). 

It comes down more to HOW your ride. Are you balanced or a sack of potatoes, so to speak?


----------



## tinyliny

it may not be politically correct to say it, but I think riding a horse at 410, and riding it hard, is bordering on abuse. I do not see how it's possible to ride a horse , hard, at that weight for any length of time without causing damage to his body.


----------



## Vendetta12

I've always considered myself to have a lighter seat. Even when I was smaller I found it better to stay off the horses back as much as possible. Plus in high school I showed a pony that would buck quite a bit (behavior issues)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SouthernTrails

tinyliny said:


> it may not be politically correct to say it, but I think riding a horse at 410, and riding it hard, is bordering on abuse. I do not see how it's possible to ride a horse , hard, at that weight for any length of time without causing damage to his body.


I agree, while the Horse may handle that kind of weight, how long will that Horse live pain free after doing that very many times?

.


----------



## SouthernTrails

Vendetta12 said:


> I've always considered myself to have a lighter seat. Even when I was smaller I found it better to stay off the horses back as much as possible. Plus in high school I showed a pony that would buck quite a bit (behavior issues)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I would rather see a heavy "light rider" who is gentle on a Horses back, than a light "heavy rider" who bounces like a rag doll. :wink:

.


----------



## Saddlebag

Any vet that has done a complete autopsy on a horse that endured too much weight can describe in detail what's happens in the joints. These horses endured the pain because to them that's part of survival. Horses have been known to founder from carrying too much weight.


----------



## jaydee

We discussed something on these lines on another thread recently and latest research suggests that a combined weight of rider and saddle should be no more than 20% of the horses weight
You also have to factor in things like age of the horse, health and fitness level and the experience of the rider will also have some impact on the horses spine
When calculating weight it should be assessed as if the horse was a healthy weight - an obese horse might weight more but that wouldn't mean it can carry more - it could actually carry less as you then have to also add in the horses excess weight into the equation
A big boned horse such as the UK type cobs and middle to heavyweight hunters will carry more weight than a well rounded TB
The measurement of bone taken around the leg just below the knee also comes into it - a big bodied horse on little fine legs will struggle a lot more than one with heavier boned legs


----------



## budley95

Vendetta12 said:


> I'm 5'9''-5'10'' and as of now I weigh in at about 294lbs (yeesh), which would mean I've lost 14lbs in 3 weeks (YAY!). Currently I'm riding a 15.3hh tank of a Quarter horse named Cowboy, but I'd like to ride my own horse. I own a 16hh ASB. Although he is considered stocky (to be a Saddlebred) he is also out of shape and too skinny. I currently do not have an English saddle so if I do ride him it will be western. So my question is am I too big for him? I do plan on lunging him to help build up his back and obviously putting weight on him. Does anyone have any ground exercises to build up his topline, rear and shoulders? Thanks in advance!


Sounds like you're doing great with your weight loss - well done and keep going! 

How about lots of long lining with him to build up his muscle, maybe lots of it going uphill to help build topline and get him building up his hindquarters - bonus of this, all the walking you'll be doing behind him will help with your weight loss too - win win situation  

Personally I agree with Jaydee about the 20% of a horses weight including tack thing, some people I know over here actually work on a 10% of the horses weight thing, where as others work on 1 stone/14ibs per hand on stockier horses.

I think you're doing great and that you'll get there in no time at all if you keep going at that rate eating clean and exercising, but right now I'd say you're a smidge too heavy for your guy, especially with his lack of muscle and weight. Keep going and let us know how it's going!!!


----------



## DuckDodgers

greentree said:


> Here is the story I tell everybody......
> 
> On my first endurance ride, the top 2 finishers showed for best condition, where they weigh rider with tack, and use that as part of the winning formula. The girl who won weighed 102, and the man in second weighed 410. He rides Arabians who probably don't weigh 975 lbs, 50 miles, and comes in top 10.
> 
> He lost some weight, but still weighed in at 310. He is 6'4".
> 
> I see nothing wrong with you riding.


That's close to HALF of the horse's weight. I don't see how that's ok, even if the horse manages to make do with it. I'm not saying that to sound rude, and I do realize that very tall people are generally going to be heavier. It may make it more difficult to find an appropriately sized horse, but that doesn't make riding that long on a small horse ok :-( 

To answer the original question, right now I think most would agree that you riding this particular horse would be a no go due to him being underweight, plus being out of shape. Depending on how skinny he is I'd say that no one (even a skilled 100 pound rider) should be on him, and fitting a saddle to a skinny horse is an additional complication. If you had a lighter rider, a well fitting saddle, and he was just a bit underweight I wouldn't see such an issue with some light riding initially. I'm not sure how skinny he is, but in the meantime follow a correct feeding protocol (using your vet's advice) to get him up closer to his ideal weight. Then start working slowly on building the correct muscles for riding. 

Unfortunately (I'm sure it's not the opinion you're hoping to hear) I would likely agree with what a couple of others have said. Your weight combined with a light 20 pound western saddle would be putting about 315 pounds on the horse's back. If you have one of those super heavy ranch saddles then that could bump that up another 20 pounds or so. I don't think the 20% rule is a hard and fast thing, but it's a good place to start. For a horse weighing 1250 pounds (a decently large horse... the weight of my friend's beefy 16.1hh TB) that rule would put the rider/tack at 250 pounds. At 315 combined weight you'd be in the 25% range for that horse weight. So while I wouldn't say not to ride that horse if it were me I wouldn't be doing any real hard or long riding. If you continue with your weight loss then you should be able to get down to a more comfortable size for both you and the horse! Other opinions will vary, but that's my thought on the subject.


----------



## amberly

I have a 13.2 hand Blazer horse that I ride that I would say is my limit. I am 5'7'' but I have ridden shorter - but only to help train the horse so the other girl wouldn't be scared to get on him.
I can touch my toes under my short horse though - so 13.2 is defintely my limit, haha


----------



## DraftyAiresMum

amberly said:


> I have a 13.2 hand Blazer horse that I ride that I would say is my limit. I am 5'7'' but I have ridden shorter - but only to help train the horse so the other girl wouldn't be scared to get on him.
> I can touch my toes under my short horse though - so 13.2 is defintely my limit, haha


It's not the height of the horse that's in question. It's the weight of the rider combined with the height and condition of the horse.


----------



## Mulefeather

I’m sorry, you cannot – CANNOT- reduce weight-carrying ability down to just a simple 20% rule. It does not take into account so many other factors. 

Let’s look at it in human terms. It’s like telling a 600 lb man he should be able to bench-press 150 lbs simply because he weighs 600 lbs. Fitness doesn’t work like that. The 600 lb man might be barely able to lift a big bag of dog food because he is so out of shape. He is fighting against his own excess weight just to lift that bag. On the other hand, a skinny, ropy, 130 lb man who is extremely fit and pure muscle might be able to take that 50 lb bag of dog food and go for a run- even though the bag is roughly 40% of his weight! He is fit, his muscles are used to the work, and he knows how to use his body. He’s also not fighting excess weight to do a job. 

What I’d want to know:

*What type of riding are you doing? Is this rough trails, jumping, dressage, or walking around an arena for 30 minutes once a week? This matters. It’s the difference between someone who goes to the gym every single day and somebody who goes for a walk in the park on Sunday afternoons. 

*How much work does this horse normally do? Does he get used hard all day, every day, or is he just pulled out of the pasture once a week? How fit is he, from a scale of couch potato to gym rat? If he were a person, would he be the guy who lifts heavy weights each day, goes jogging after sitting down at a desk, or the dude who gets winded walking across a flat parking lot? 

*What is his conformation like? A short, stocky, close-coupled horse like a bulldog-type QH is going to be a better weight carrier than a tall, leggy ASB, especially one who is not fit.

Now for the bad news – I don’t think your ASB will be a good fit for you until you are fitter. The conformation difference between the two breeds are just too huge and too severe, and ASBs aren’t great weight carriers to begin with. They tend to have thin bones, long backs, and are thin in the chest- all of which just don’t equate to weight carrying. Stick with the QH for now, but pay attention to his health and make sure you are warming him up and cooling him out properly each time you ride. If he has heavy bone, is in good fitness himself with solid muscle and a good topline, there’s no reason he can’t carry you as long as you keep an eye on his health. If you’re not already, pay attention to his legs and joints and any heat or swelling that occurs after you ride. If he’s uncomfortable for days after you ride, it might be a sign that he’s being worked too much too quickly.


----------



## blueriver

I'm thinking I don't buy that 20% deal.

Just saying.


----------



## DuckDodgers

amberly said:


> I have a 13.2 hand Blazer horse that I ride that I would say is my limit. I am 5'7'' but I have ridden shorter - but only to help train the horse so the other girl wouldn't be scared to get on him.
> I can touch my toes under my short horse though - so 13.2 is defintely my limit, haha


Like Drafty said, height isn't the issue. Well, to a certain degree. Not very many 6'5 men of a healthy weight would be able to successfully ride a tiny pony and not be too heavy for them...

A good friend of mine is quite tall (5'10 or 11) and had a 13.2 hh pony when we were in high school. She was, and still, is very light and came nowhere near being too heavy for the pony. She had great fun doing everything from hacking bareback to jumping that pony, but people gave her all sorts of crud for being "too big" for her. Sure, she did look very funny on her. But, now that she's being leased to a lesson program there are probably kids heavier than my friend was at the time riding her now. I find it irritating that people get all up in arms over a tall person riding a short horse (assuming they're not too heavy for the horse) but the trend nowadays in the English world is for everyone (short people included) to have super tall horses. It works for me cause I'm short, but makes things frustrating for the tall folks out there! Sorry, that was a semi off topic thing there...


----------



## DuckDodgers

Mulefeather said:


> I’m sorry, you cannot – CANNOT- reduce weight-carrying ability down to just a simple 20% rule. It does not take into account so many other factors.
> 
> *Let’s look at it in human terms. It’s like telling a 600 lb man he should be able to bench-press 150 lbs simply because he weighs 600 lbs. Fitness doesn’t work like that. The 600 lb man might be barely able to lift a big bag of dog food because he is so out of shape. He is fighting against his own excess weight just to lift that bag. On the other hand, a skinny, ropy, 130 lb man who is extremely fit and pure muscle might be able to take that 50 lb bag of dog food and go for a run- even though the bag is roughly 40% of his weight! He is fit, his muscles are used to the work, and he knows how to use his body. He’s also not fighting excess weight to do a job. *
> 
> What I’d want to know:
> 
> *What type of riding are you doing? Is this rough trails, jumping, dressage, or walking around an arena for 30 minutes once a week? This matters. It’s the difference between someone who goes to the gym every single day and somebody who goes for a walk in the park on Sunday afternoons.
> 
> *How much work does this horse normally do? Does he get used hard all day, every day, or is he just pulled out of the pasture once a week? How fit is he, from a scale of couch potato to gym rat? If he were a person, would he be the guy who lifts heavy weights each day, goes jogging after sitting down at a desk, or the dude who gets winded walking across a flat parking lot?
> 
> *What is his conformation like? A short, stocky, close-coupled horse like a bulldog-type QH is going to be a better weight carrier than a tall, leggy ASB, especially one who is not fit.
> 
> Now for the bad news – I don’t think your ASB will be a good fit for you until you are fitter. The conformation difference between the two breeds are just too huge and too severe, and ASBs aren’t great weight carriers to begin with. They tend to have thin bones, long backs, and are thin in the chest- all of which just don’t equate to weight carrying. Stick with the QH for now, but pay attention to his health and make sure you are warming him up and cooling him out properly each time you ride. If he has heavy bone, is in good fitness himself with solid muscle and a good topline, there’s no reason he can’t carry you as long as you keep an eye on his health. If you’re not already, pay attention to his legs and joints and any heat or swelling that occurs after you ride. If he’s uncomfortable for days after you ride, it might be a sign that he’s being worked too much too quickly.


The point of the 20% rule is that you're considering the horse's IDEAL weight. If you have an overweight horse they may (strictly going by that "rule") theoretically be able to carry significantly more weight. That's just not true, and is a pretty fundamental part of the logic behind it. Having excess fat on the horse (or human for that matter) won't enable them to carry more weight, and in many cases can mean they should be carrying LESS weight. That's particularly true for very overweight horses, as with people. Common sense should tell one that you can't keep fattening up your TB to make them carry larger loads! However, properly building up muscle can help make carrying larger loads much easier on the horse. 

As I've said before on threads like these (and should have said on this one if I didn't), I don't think that the 20% rule is hard and fast. Almost EVERY time it's even mentioned in a thread people come jumping out to put it down. I do understand the point they're trying to make, but I think it's a good place to start. Generally speaking with a healthy, reasonably well put together, in shape horse 20% should be alright for regular work. Beyond that and there are other factors that need to be considered- fitness level of the horse, the kind of work they'll be performing with the load in question, how often they will be ridden, for how long, the horse's health and conformation, etc. I'm not saying no one over 200 pounds should ever ride a 1000 pound horse, though there are some people who follow that rule closely that would.


----------



## Mulefeather

DuckDodgers - you make a lot of really good points, and that's just what I was attempting to get across. I think of the "rule" as an over-simplification that gets a lot of people very upset or over-confident without an understanding of all the factors that contribute. 

I've known people who subscribe to the 10% rule (in which case I'd need to trade up to a camel...)


----------



## DuckDodgers

Mulefeather said:


> DuckDodgers - you make a lot of really good points, and that's just what I was attempting to get across. I think of the "rule" as an over-simplification that gets a lot of people very upset or over-confident without an understanding of all the factors that contribute.
> 
> I've known people who subscribe to the 10% rule (in which case I'd need to trade up to a camel...)


Gosh, if that was the case no one could ride anything but big horses...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaydee

I think if you look back to my post about the 20% rule you'll see that I did include various other factors that have to be taken into account
Height isn't essentially a deciding factor - build and bone (as in the legs) are more important. A stocky cobby 13.2 would likely carry more weight than a light built, fine legged 15 hander
Considering the original rule was 10% the 20% is a big increase. The figure was reached using trials that measured how well horses coped with different weights measuring heart and respiratory rates and how well the horse performed the following day.
In practical terms as well - a horse that's being gently ridden by a heavier rider once a week for a short distance/time is going to be less impacted by it than one that's ridden hard on a daily basis for a long period of time and over challenging terrain 
The conclusion is exactly the same as the one stated in the US Cavalry Manual of 1920


----------



## mrwithers

I recently saw this article where they studied horses and weight capacity. Their sample size wasn't very large but they basically have good backing for the 20% rule you keep hearing people talk about. They worked horses in trot/canter with as much as 30% of the horses body weight to be able to measure those negative effects.

Horsesâ€™ Weight-Carrying Ability Studied | Equinews

I don't know what your horse weighs but my 15.3HH QH is 1100 lean and muscled up so you'd be 26% of that. Based on that article I think light work would be fine but I think you should ask your vet.


----------



## Vendetta12

Thanks for everyone's input! I'm attaching a picture taken of him 4-8-15 (7th birthday). As for fitness he definitely needs to be brought back into shape, luckily I have a few people at my barn that are MUCH lighter and willing to get on his crazy butt. I care deeply about my horses well being and don't want to ride him until I know he can carry me. I've been going to a weight loss clinic (went today) and she was impressed on how I was responding to the prescription. I'm not insulted by anyone's views or opinions, because I need the hard truth. The vet actually said he wasn't underweight, but he looks skinny to me. The quarter horse I ride is actually a western pleasure show horse who is used to larger riders and has had no troubles with me so far.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum

You know, it could just be the angle, but he has decent bone for an ASB. He does look like he needs muscling and to be in better shape, though.


----------



## Vendetta12

When I move him to my barn I'm going to have my trainer help me take conformation photos because I have LOTS of questions about his conformation. This was taken kind of behind and to the right of him instead of straight on. I'll post conformation photos when I have them taken. And I was told he was stocky when I was given him, but this isn't the type of stocky I'm used to! lol


----------



## Vendetta12

Here are some good pictures I got of him while lunging.


----------



## DuckDodgers

He doesn't look to be a bad weight to me. I would tend to agree with your vet based on this one photo- many people today are used to seeing overweight horses and that may skew some people's judgement on what is a horse in good weight. He does look to be lacking muscle though, particularly along his topline. He could perhaps have a little more weight on him, but I would rather slowly focus on putting muscle on properly. I'll wait for proper conformation photos to make any comment there... The angle is kind of funny and can skew what we're seeing!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## phantomhorse13

I break the 20% 'rule' basically every time I ride one of our horses, as Sultan weighed in at 887lb at a ride last year and I go about 180 with tack.. yet I have ridden that horse hundreds of miles, twice going 100 miles in a day last season.. but with his 8 inch cannon bones and short ayrab back, he has many more miles still to go in him!

OP, I think if you pay attention to the horse you are currently riding there is no reason you can't keep riding him. If the horse hasn't shown any signs of strain so far, then things will only improve as you work on yourself. I think you need to continue your weigh loss program (congrats on the good work so far!!) and you will be riding your own horse soon enough.

When I look at your pics, I see a horse that needs some muscle.. and I see a back where saddle fit is going to be very important. Working him (or in this case having your friends work him) with lots of transitions and hill work will do wonders for that topline, but make sure to be checking saddle fit every step of the way. My SIL has a lovely ASB who looks very much like your horse (and who also came to her needing muscle) and we have had to do a lot of shimming and adjusting as the horse has developed.


----------



## tinyliny

that's a lovely horse! is that a treeless saddle? it looks like it is very far forward on his shoulders.


----------



## DuckDodgers

tinyliny said:


> that's a lovely horse! is that a treeless saddle? it looks like it is very far forward on his shoulders.


I also noticed that it looked quite far forward. It looks like one of these to me, but I may be wrong...
Bakersfield CA Synthetic English Treeless Horse Saddle Many Colors Unisex | eBay


----------



## DraftyAiresMum

DuckDodgers said:


> I also noticed that it looked quite far forward. It looks like one of these to me, but I may be wrong...
> Bakersfield CA Synthetic English Treeless Horse Saddle Many Colors Unisex | eBay


Part of me knows that those probably aren't great, but another part of me wants the red and black one sooooooooooooo badly!!!!! :lol:


----------



## FrostedLilly

First of all, congrats on losing 15 lbs. That is no easy feat and you must be working very hard. 

With that being said, I was also on the thread that talked about how much weight is too much and 20% was kind of at the top end, although signs of soreness and stress weren't observed until about 25% of the horse's body weight was reached. It really depends on the horse you ride. I can't imagine even the most stockiest of Quarter Horses weighing in at more than 1500 lbs and that's really at the top top end and 20% of that is 300 lbs. It might be worth having a heart to heart with an experienced trainer who won't sugar coat things - hopefully he/she won't be mean, but someone who will give it you straight. Based on your riding style, does he/she think you're too big? Based on the horse, does he/she think you're too heavy? And other questions of that nature. If the answer is yes, maybe this is your motivator to continue on the good path that you're on towards a healthy weight.


----------



## carshon

I read posts about comparing rider weight to horse weight with absolute dread! I am a heavier rider and have been heavier my entire life. To make a broad claim that 20% is the rule is the gold standard makes me cringe. So many things have to be taken into consideration. Horses conformation is one. So many heavier riders assume that they should ride a draft or draft cross because that horse is heavier - but those horses were not bred for riding and studies have shown they do not always carry riders well.

To the OP- I would say keep riding the horse you are riding. You are obviously an intelligent and caring horse owner to publically question your own ability to ride due to your weight. Horses will let you know when their back hurts or when they hurt. Look for signs - and if you are the typical rider of today the chance that you are really riding your horse hard is slim.

Best of luck and keep up the good work with your weight loss.


----------



## FrostedLilly

carshon said:


> Horses will let you know when their back hurts or when they hurt.


That's not necessarily the case. That is also very dependent on the horse. If you have a really sensitive horse, they will let you know. That's one of the biggest problems when riding - so many horses don't show any signs of pain until it gets really serious. And I don't think the 20% is the absolute hard and fast rule, but I think it's a good start as a baseline and then give or take depending on things like conformation, riding ability and style, etc. I think research into this area is fairly new and perhaps limited since rider weight hasn't been a huge issue until recent history. Like I said before, people on the internet can only tell you so much. If it's something that is really worrying you, talk to a trainer or someone knowledgeable who has seen you ride and see what their input might be.


----------



## greentree

Please go to the stallions and brood mares section, and check out the training pictures of WS Arabian's stallion. There is NO WAY that trainer is even 30% of that horse's weight.....

No body at that show said he weighs too much to train that lovely horse.


----------



## jaydee

Just because people do things and it gets ignored doesn't mean its right.
Having someone heavier ride a horse for a short time is unlikely to do it any harm and there will always be exceptions - but how often do we hear the 'horse is bucking', horse doesn't want to go willingly, horse is barn/buddy sour and out comes the stock answer
Get its back checked/ get a chiro out?
You don't have to get a draft horse if you're heavier - there are plenty of cob types and the UK type of middle to heavyweight horses out there like the Irish Drafts and draft crosses that are bigger boned to up to carrying more weight


----------



## bsms

jaydee said:


> We discussed something on these lines on another thread recently and latest research suggests that a combined weight of rider and saddle should be no more than 20% of the horses weight...


The supposed experiments showing that were badly designed to the point of being totally invalid. The most quoted one used horses who had not been ridden for 4 months, and then were only ridden 45 minutes every 2 weeks - IOW, completely out of shape horses. It then struggled to find evidence that 20% was meaningful.

If I sat on my butt for 4 months and then went out jogging, how far do you think I could get before showing signs of pain? What validity would that have to how far a human can run without ill effect? NONE!


----------



## FrostedLilly

They tested the horses with different weights of people and found soreness at 25% and up. If these horses were so out of shape, would they not have found them to be sore with lower weights as well? I am not saying that study is the be all end all either, but I think it raises an important issue as peoples ' sizes on average are getting heavier. I think that since this is a relatively recent phenomenon, there definitely needs to be more research done. The 10% - 20% is just a guideline and of course will vary from horse to horse and person to person.


----------



## bsms

"Eight horses (one mare and seven geldings), all of light-horse breeding and weighing between 391 and 625 kilograms, were used in the study. The horses ranged from 6 to 18 years old. Following four months of pasture rest, the horses were brought into individual box stalls and also had daily turnout. They were fed hay and grain and had free access to water and trace-mineralized salt...

...Four treatments were used, with horses carrying 15, 20, 25, or 30% of their weight. Each horse worked one day and then was rested for 14 days. Work periods consisted of carrying tack (saddle with space for additional lead weights) and a rider at a walk, trot, and canter for a set distance in an indoor arena...

...Plasma lactate concentrations immediately after and ten minutes after exercise were lower when horses carried 15, 20, and 25% of their body weight compared with carrying 30%. Levels of creatine kinase measured immediately after exercise and also 24 and 48 hours following exercise showed the same pattern. Mean percentage of change in muscle soreness measured 24 hours before and 24 hours after exercise was greater in horses carrying 25 and 30% of their body weight than when they carried less weight...

...No differences were found in heart rate, plasma lactate concentration, respiration rate, rectal temperature, and work rate for horses carrying weights of 15 and 20% of body weight. Serum creatine kinase activity, commonly used as a measure of muscle damage in exercising horses, was not changed when the horses carried 15 and 20% of their body weight. Post-exercise creatine kinase activity was greater in horses carrying 30% of body weight, and levels remained elevated 24 and 48 hours after exercise."

Horsesâ€™ Weight-Carrying Ability Studied | Equinews​So they took out of shape horses which had been unridden for 4 months. Then they rode them once every 2 weeks. They discovered that at 15 & 20% of body weight, the horse's showed no signs of exercise. There was almost no sign of exercise at 25%: "Plasma lactate concentrations immediately after and ten minutes after exercise were lower when horses carried 15, 20, and 25% of their body weight compared with carrying 30%. Levels of creatine kinase measured immediately after exercise and also 24 and 48 hours following exercise showed the same pattern."

The only indicator of work shown at 25% was "change in muscle soreness" as evaluated by a human examiner. I don't consider that a particularly objective finding, since it didn't match the blood chemistry tests.

And since it was all done on out of riding shape horses, it is the equivalent of deciding how far a human can run by having me hang around the house for 4 months, then try jogging once every two weeks. Did I have muscle soreness after 1/4 mile? Golly, that means humans should not jog over 1/4 mile...

No, it means an out of shape human can't jog very far without showing any signs of soreness.

About the only thing the study DID show is that even an out of shape horse can carry 20% of its weight with no sign of effort involved. There is some indication an out of shape horse starts feeling things at 25%, but most of the indicators say the exercise doesn't have significant impact until 30%.

And even then...it is just exercise! My 57 year old back is tender right now. I rode Mia yesterday and lifted weights last night. I ran 3.5 miles the evening prior...and now I'm tired. Good! I had to quit jogging for 5 years after an accident, and it is tough getting back in shape in my late 50s...but I'm getting there.

If your horse is out of shape, limit how much you ride him and how hard until he gets in better shape. If you get him in shape, then 30% of body weight is probably reasonable - just don't ride him hard every day at that weight.


----------



## jaydee

So tell me bsms - how many of the horses that are being ridden by overweight riders are managed any differently?
What they did in that study was take what is actually the average pleasure horse - it often gets a long period of time off in the winter, gets ridden maybe a few times during the week in the summer if it's lucky and then longer rides at weekends
Not my idea of a competition fit horse - but it is exactly how a fun horse is managed.
They are mostly never even remotely fit so in fact the study was very credible


----------



## bsms

If someone rides their horse regularly, the study was not remotely accurate. It is not accurate for a lesson horse. And even with unfit horses, it really found that 25% was OK, and showed no signs of anything other than modest exercise up at 30%. It did not in any way support your claim that _"latest research suggests that a combined weight of rider and saddle should be no more than 20% of the horses weight..."_.

It showed 20% is the level at which an unfit horse will not even notice it is working. Turning that into an upper limit for riding is abusing the data, and doing so in a way that would eliminate most male riders from riding.

I know 200 lb plus ranchers who toss a 35-45 lb saddle on a horse and ride it all day, and then the next, and then the next, all without the horse ever showing any signs of harm or reduced productivity. Almost every ride I've had on Mia was at 25% of her weight. It sure never seemed to slow her down. Putting a 20% upper limit on a rider (and tack) as you did is unsupported by studies or real life.

"_Considering the original rule was 10% the 20% is a big increase._"

A 10% rule would have limited Mia to a 65 lb rider in a 25 lb saddle. If that doesn't strike everyone as ridiculous, then it ought to. Mia would assume she had lost her rider entirely...:shock:


----------



## jaydee

The US Cavalry came to exactly the same conclusion on the 20% ratio being about ideal


----------



## bsms

No, the US Cavalry did not. I've been unable to find anything published by the US Cavalry suggesting a 20% limit. A guy who loved jumping made that claim in the 40s, but I've read the US Cavalry manual on riding from cover to cover without ever finding any such statement. I don't have a 1920 manual, but I've read one from 1912 (actually a 1913 translation of the French manual which the US Army translated and published) and the one published in the 40s.

And in fact, the US Cavalry did NOT in any way follow a 20% limit. The rider plus tack plus rifle plus ammo plus grain, etc easily exceeded 20% of a horse's weight, and did so normally. There was a pack train for heavier supplies, but the total carried by the horse normally weighed well over 200 lbs total. IIRC, 240 was a typical range. That would be consistent with this:"_The second Cavalry Endurance Ride was held in 1920. The U.S. Remount Service, representing the Army, became much more involved in the ride this year. The Army wanted to increase the weight carried to 245 pounds and the Arabian owners agreed. The horses traveled sixty miles a day for five days with a minimum time of nine hours each day. The highest average points of any breed entered went to Arabians, although a grade Thoroughbred entered by the Army won first. 

__According to Albert Harris (Arabian Horse Registry Director 1924-1949), the (Thoroughbred) Jockey Club gave the Army $50,000 in 1921 to purchase the best Thoroughbreds they could find for that year's endurance ride. Mr. Harris wrote: "With two endurance rides to the credit of Arabian horses in 1919 and 1920, the U.S. Remount, and incidentally the Jockey Club, felt something had to be done to beat these little horses in the next ride..." The Army selected all Thoroughbreds or grade Thoroughbreds which were all ridden by Cavalry majors. The Army also wanted to lower the weight carried to 200 pounds, but the Arabian people, having proved their horses at 245 pounds, objected. A compromise was reached at 225._"​Welcome to Arabian Horses.org - Education

If someone can show an actual quote from a Cavalry manual recommending a 20% limit, I'll gladly eat my words. I once spent 3-4 hours searching but have been unable to find any such limit...although the claim is often made on the Internet.

The IDEAL weight is obviously as little as possible. But a 180 lb guy plus a western saddle would be unable to ride just about any Arabian if 20% was a realistic maximum. Trooper is 3/4 Arabian, weighs in at 835, so his "maximum" is 167...minus 30 lbs for the saddle, and he'd be limited to a rider of around 135-140. Yet he carried 200+ lb riders for 10-12 hours days on the ranch he was raised on, without harm. His sire wasn't much bigger, but my 190 lb rancher friend said his sire would do 50 miles a day, day after day, and was always eager to go.

There is no scientific basis for a 20% limit.


----------



## DuckDodgers

jaydee said:


> *Just because people do things and it gets ignored doesn't mean its right.*
> Having someone heavier ride a horse for a short time is unlikely to do it any harm and there will always be exceptions - but how often do we hear the 'horse is bucking', horse doesn't want to go willingly, horse is barn/buddy sour and out comes the stock answer
> Get its back checked/ get a chiro out?
> You don't have to get a draft horse if you're heavier - there are plenty of cob types and the UK type of middle to heavyweight horses out there like the Irish Drafts and draft crosses that are bigger boned to up to carrying more weight


I think this is important, and I have some trouble phrasing it in a way that may not offend some people. Often times on threads like this I see post that basically amount to "The 20% rule is not at all valid. If that was the case at XXX pounds I couldn't ride my horse that weighs XXXX pounds" as though because you do it that makes it ok, or not damaging to the horse in the long term. Almost no reasonable horse owner will knowingly do something to damage their horse's well being, but weight can be a tricky issue. We all need to make an educated decision about how to ride/which horse to ride/if we should ride a particular horse (including everything from rider/tack weight to ability to horse health/lameness issues), but "I (or my uncle, mother, trainer, etc) do it so it's ok" isn't really a valid standard to follow IMO. 

As an example- back in high school a few friends of mine boarded at a place that had a cute little well proportioned pinto mini. I think it was bought for the owner's kid to be led around on or something. One of the girls out at the barn at that time was probably not too much taller than me (5'3") and probably not too much more than 100 pounds... Fairly small as far as almost grown humans go, but giant compared to the horse. I searched the girl's facebook page and found a picture of her sitting on him. I'd post it, but I'm sure the girl would like to have her privacy respected. Either way, her heels came down quite close to the pony's fetlocks and her rear took up the vast majority of the pony's back. The pony's owner gave the girl permission to ride the pony hoping to get some training on him. She rode him even at the trot and canter all around the arena. 

We didn't really think anything of it at the time. We were all small and light at the time, so didn't think too much about her getting on him. She did it, but that definitely doesn't mean that it was ok or that she didn't do damage to the pony in the long run. They ended up shutting that boarding barn down not long after he got there, so hopefully she didn't have enough time to do too much damage to him. 

Note that I am not singling anyone out with this post, nor am I singling out anyone who breaks the "rule". As I've said before, there are lots of other factors to consider.


----------



## bsms

Some cavalry photos taken during World War 1, showing why field horses carried a lot more weight than just their rider:








​ 
















​ 









If there was evidence horse's could not carry more than 20% of their weight without suffering long term harm, I'd find a way to follow it. But while "The Rule" is often mentioned, there is no support for it that I can find.​


----------



## FrostedLilly

I think it's important to remember that the average height of a WWI soldier was 5'6" and 145 - 150 lbs. I'm also not sure that referencing how humans have treated horses in the past is really a good example since humane treatment wasn't really at the top of the agenda, especially during war time. 

And the study isn't pulling a bunch of horses and making them run for an hour with heavier and heavier weights. It is controlled and the weight gradually increased. That would be like jogging for a specified amount of time, resting for two weeks and then doing the same thing, only this time adding 20 lb weights and repeating this. At the beginning, it should only be mild soreness from out of shape muscles, but as you increase that weight, at some point you're going to start to feel significantly more sore than you did at lighter weights. And if you continue with weight that is too heavy, you will indeed hurt yourself. It happens to athletes all the time - they train too hard, lift too much weight, whatever it might be and do damage. Is 20% the magic number? Maybe, maybe not. I think the purpose was to shed light on an issue that is becoming more prevalent. I don't think one should discount the study completely because they don't like what it has to say.


----------



## DuffyDuck

I said it once, and I'll say it again.

I'll take a larger, balanced and experienced rider over a "normal" weight person who can't ride and bounces all over my horse's back.

There are so many variables, whether the horse is fit, his age, any medical issues, how long, what ground.

OP, if you have people to help build his fitness up, why don't you have them ride whilst you work on your weight? I would say that's too heavy, especially as he is currently lacking a good top line.

I started a fitness programme for my father so he could ride his mare. It wasn't tough, but it did mean dedication and he did tell me to foxtrot oscar on a few occasions. PM me if you want more info.


----------



## bsms

Glynnis said:


> I think it's important to remember that the average height of a WWI soldier was 5'6" and 145 - 150 lbs. I'm also not sure that referencing how humans have treated horses in the past is really a good example since humane treatment wasn't really at the top of the agenda, especially during war time.


Look at the gear. If someone claims the Cavalry figured out 20% was the maximum, then pictures showing a 150 lb man with 100 lbs of gear and tack would indicate the cavalry did not follow that supposed rule.

From what I have read, it may be found in a book on horse management written by a fan of jumping. Without seeing what that man wrote in context, I can't evaluate it. But the cavalry manuals on riding made no mention of it, and the cavalry did not try to follow it.



Glynnis said:


> And the study isn't pulling a bunch of horses and making them run for an hour with heavier and heavier weights. It is controlled and the weight gradually increased. That would be like jogging for a specified amount of time, resting for two weeks and then doing the same thing, only this time adding 20 lb weights and repeating this. At the beginning, it should only be mild soreness from out of shape muscles, but as you increase that weight, at some point you're going to start to feel significantly more sore than you did at lighter weights....


Two weeks of rest in between was done so it would be a fresh start every time. I cannot get better at jogging if I only jog once every 2 weeks. That is why they set the study up that way - so there would be no improvement in the horse's carrying capacity. They started with a 4 month rest to prevent conditioning from impacting their results.

If a 225 lb man gets on a 900 lb horse and rides him hard, the horse will suffer. But if the man rides him some at a walk, then some more at a walk, and gradually builds up to a trot and canter, and then extends those times, the horse's body will adapt just as a jogger or weight lifter's will.

The study was designed to keep the horses at the "zero conditioning" stage, which makes it largely worthless by itself.

It then found a measurable increase in stress at the 30% level, not the 25% level, unless you include the evaluation done by horse massagers. They add in a human element of evaluation, which raises the possibility of bias. At a minimum, they found 'stress' at a level the blood work did not.

And that stress, by itself, only means it is at a point where an out of shape horse NEEDS to get in order to get into shape. With winds running 30 mph yesterday, I didn't ride or jog - but I lifted weights. My back is tender as I sit here typing. Did I abuse myself, or did I do something that, if done regularly, will make me stronger? When I come back from a run feeling like a whipped noodle, have I been cruel, or have I done what is needed if I am to become a better jogger?

Applying a rule based on body weight of the horse is silly. The Arabians in the races held by the Army were quite content to carry weights of 245. It was the folks with the bigger horses who wanted the weight reduced to 200 lbs. Why would the smaller Arabians be glad to carry more weight...unless they were built in a way that gave them an advantage by carrying the greater weight?

My 13 hand mustang has legs as thick as my 15.2 Arabian. How does that impact him? His back is as thick as hers...so how does that impact his weight carrying ability? But he's only been ridden a half dozen times this last year, so that probably impacts his ability downward. IOW, it is an individual decision based on size, rider ability, saddle type, horse conformation, fitness levels, etc.

DuffyDuck: "_OP, if you have people to help build his fitness up, why don't you have them ride whilst you work on your weight_?"

That is an excellent suggestion. I've lost 30 lbs over the last 6 months and may be down to where my 13 hand mustang could carry me pretty easily, particularly since I'm often content to just walk my horse along the trails. But my youngest daughter will be out of school in a month, and letting her ride him for 4-6 weeks would help him get in better shape before putting my 155 lbs on top of him (and his, at most, 700 lbs...so 25-27% with tack).

If I do start riding him later this summer, I'll feel for his balance and watch how he behaves. If I'm too much...then I'm too much. But I've watched him, when in riding shape, carry someone who probably weighed 200 lbs at a canter or gallop and show no sign of distress...but he is also a tank of a 13 hand mustang. He might handle it fine.


----------



## jaydee

As far as I can tell the recommendation came from this man though there are also many references to an earlier Manual stating the same

_The U.S. Calvary published “The Cavalry Manual of Horse Management”, by Frederick L. Devereux, Jr., in 1941. He recommended that the collective weight of rider and gear not exceed 20% of the total weight of the horse. These were horses in top condition whose riders’ very lives depended on the horse's ability to carry them long miles, often at speed. It stands to reason that if they were to incorporate a margin of error, it would be on the side of the horse being overly capable of carrying its rider, rather than less so. _


As far as makes sense to me you look at an approximate ideal based on the build and fitness of the horse and then use common sense - after all anyone who thinks that they don't have to work a lot harder to carry a 50lb bag of sand on their shoulders for two hours compared to a 14lb one is deluding themselves
The same applies - the fitter and more muscled you are the easier it will be which takes you right back to 'how fit is the average 'fun' horse.

I grew up in a country where on the whole larger men normally buy larger built horses so I actually find it odd seeing larger men riding small horses or ponies

In the late 1960's the British Household cavalry had a series of much lighter boned smaller horses than their typical sturdier mounts - bearing in mind that they don't wear ceremonial gear all the time and the soldiers are expected to be fit - none of those horses lasted more than 5 years because the strain was too much for them. There was no retirement in those days so they were all shot


----------



## phantomhorse13

jaydee said:


> In the late 1960's the British Household cavalry had a series of *much lighter boned* smaller horses than their typical sturdier mounts - bearing in mind that they don't wear ceremonial gear all the time and the soldiers are expected to be fit - none of those horses lasted more than 5 years because the strain was too much for them.


Being lighter boned was a big issue there, not just the fact the horse was smaller.

One of our arab geldings is maybe 14.3 with shoes on and weighs just under 900lbs.. but he has 8 inch cannon bones and a lovely, short back. I would take him for an endurance mount any and every day over one of the 16+ hand, long backed, light boned halter-type arabians out there. I am sure those horses outweigh mine by 100 or more pounds.. but they sure as heck aren't going to hold up to the riding I want to do!


And for those saying breaking the 20% rule eventually is going to cause a problem, the horse referenced above is in the middle of his 9th season of distance riding - at age 16 - and still going strong. There is a lot more to it than _just_ weight.


----------



## FrostedLilly

I really think as technology improves, we are beginning to fully understand this issue as well. There is also evidence emerging that suggests training right at 2 years old can also do harm. But we've been doing it for hundreds of years and the horse "seems fine", so we continue to do it, not realizing the underlying damage that isn't immediately visible. 

Given that the increasing size of people in the modernized world is something that is relatively recent, I'm not surprised that there isn't a ton of research out there. However, with 74.1% of the US population being overweight or obese, I think this is something that we should all be more cognizant of because it is important.


----------



## bsms

jaydee said:


> As far as I can tell the recommendation came from this man though there are also many references to an earlier Manual stating the same
> 
> _The U.S. Calvary published “The Cavalry Manual of Horse Management”, by Frederick L. Devereux, Jr., in 1941. He recommended that the collective weight of rider and gear not exceed 20% of the total weight of the horse. These were horses in top condition whose riders’ very lives depended on the horse's ability to carry them long miles, often at speed. It stands to reason that if they were to incorporate a margin of error, it would be on the side of the horse being overly capable of carrying its rider, rather than less so. _
> 
> As far as makes sense to me you look at an approximate ideal based on the build and fitness of the horse and then use common sense - after all anyone who thinks that they don't have to work a lot harder to carry a 50lb bag of sand on their shoulders for two hours compared to a 14lb one is deluding themselves...


From what I've read, that guy was in to jumping, as was Gen Chamberlin. By the 40s, jumping seemed to be more the goal of the cavalry than field manuevers, which may be why Chamberlin tried to get the Cavalry to switch to jump saddles. But jump saddles are utterly unsuited for field cavalry.

Yes, it is easier to carry 14 lbs than 50. It is easier to carry 1 lb than 14. The easiest for a horse is no rider at all. That isn't the point.

For practical riding, it becomes how much can a rider weigh and ride his horse without doing any damage to the horse. Some soreness is OK, because the horse is there to please the rider. That is why most of us own them - to ride. And it is reasonable to cause some soreness to your horse just as you do to yourself when getting into better shape.

Based on the one study, a reasonable weight is around 25%, since 25% didn't cause any significant changes in the blood chemistry. 30% caused more, but then, one doesn't get stronger without working hard enough that the body needs to rebuild.

From riding my horses at anywhere from 22% up to about 33% of their body weight, I'd say 30% is a strain for a horse who isn't in good shape and an effort for the horse even if in shape. Cowboy has to work to balance us in sharp turns and will tire noticeably faster when ridden by me (when I was 180+) than my much lighter daughter. Cowboy has thick legs and a thick, short back. He is well built to carry a lot of weight and CAN carry 220 lbs total fast and hard - when he is in shape. But of course he'll tire faster.

Mia can go all day with me at 25-26%. On any given ride, her endurance with me is greater than MY endurance on her. She can wear me into the ground and still act fresh. I'm currently at 21% of her weight (including my 35 lb saddle). The Arizona heat may wear her down, but I see no indication my weight can do it. I'll drop before she does.

That is why I think the real answer is, "It depends". I've watched my 100 lb DIL, when learning, bounce enough on Trooper that Trooper wanted to quit after one lap of trotting, but he'd do lap after lap with me (180+ then) cantering (or trotting). I've seen Mia hot, but I've never seen her tired from carrying me. OTOH, I've seen some heavy riders get on the horse and watched the horse's eyes bug out.

Both from the studies I've seen and watching my own horses, I think a better measurement would be maximum PSI - how many pounds per square inch are being applied to the muscles of the back. I liked my jump saddle, but it had a narrow channel and concentrated my weight too close to Mia's backbone. Using it, I have seen Mia act sore backed. Using a saddle that fits her better, I have not. She is more energetic when ridden in my 35 lb western saddle than she ever was in my English saddles - which could be a reflection of my riding ability as well as the smaller area of weight distribution. But a western saddle that bridges or has too much rock might cause more problems than a smaller English one would.

If your horse acts eager, is relaxed for mounting and dismounting, and breaks into a jog on her own when leading her back to the corral or stall, you're probably OK - regardless of weight. If your horse's eye bug out when you go to mount, or she drags herself back from a ride...maybe you need to rethink things.

But a maximum of 20% of body weight is NOT an evidence-based rule.


----------



## FrostedLilly

I don't think it's a question of if the horse is capable, but if the continuing strain presented by > 25-30% is causing long-term damage. I've known many horses that don't present any kind of symptoms until the injury has become advanced. Luckily for me, I tend towards the sensitive energetic personalities, so I usually know right off the bat when something is off. For the average qh weighing in at 1100 lbs, 20% should be more than adequate for most people. I don't think the study was intending to suggest that 20% was the absolute maximum since there are so many variables to consider, but rather is trying to establish a guideline at the very least that could be applied to a large section of the horse & rider population.


----------



## Saddlebag

Glynnis, the early cowboys bronced out the wild colts at two, then turned them back into the herd for another 3 years before riding them again.


----------



## MyBoySi

I'm a heavy rider exceeding 20% when I ride my qh gelding and I have no issues with it what so ever. Neither do my vet or chiro. 

I've ridden this horse for 8 years regularly and hard through all different terrain and at different speeds. He was started at 2 years of age (I know the previous owner, he's only been with her and me) used hard as a lesson horse 6 days a week until he was given to me 3-4 years ago. 

The vet is always telling me what great shape he's in when he sees him, he's very muscular and fit and looks like a horse half his age. He's 15 this year. 

I'd think as long as your horse has the conditioning along with correct bone, conformation, you're a decent balanced rider etc. the 20% rule doesn't always apply.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

Glynnis said:


> I don't think it's a question of if the horse is capable, but if the continuing strain presented by > 25-30% is causing long-term damage...


There is no study of any kind on that subject. However, the variables make it impossible to do one.

Long term riding - doing what? Walking and trotting along a trail? Jumping? Dressage? Reining? And if a horse suffers a debilitating injury in dressage or reining, is it because of genetics? Being pushed beyond what its conformation allows? Too much weight for the legs? How would anyone figure out the cause, or get meaningful statistics from millions of horses?

There are plenty of old ranch horses who have hauled around big men for many hours in the saddle without breaking down. There are plenty of horses in competition ridden by petite ladies who have broken down. The 57 year old jogger in me suspects competitive sports have broken down more horses than big men (or women) riding long hours at a walk or trot.

For example, another study showed horses carrying heavier loads traveled slower, keeping each foot in contact with the ground for longer periods of time to relieve stress. Most riders going down a trail wouldn't notice the horse dropping its speed by 0.3 mph, but that is a change that helps the horse. In the competitive world, though, the horse is pushed to its limits - and often beyond. Slowing 0.3 mph would be unacceptable.

If someone is heavy, they should pick a horse with a short, strong back and thick legs. I think that is good advice for anyone. Then ride the horse regularly, starting with short walks and build up the length and speed depending on how the horse responds. Use a saddle that distributes weight over the largest area your saddle preference allows. Don't push the horse to compete with horses ridden by lighter riders. Listen to your horse.

I think we can learn enough by watching the humans around us to figure out what will break a horse down early."In this phase of the study, seven Arabian geldings and mares were trained to walk and trot along a level fence line in response to voice commands. They were timed as they walked and trotted the distance unburdened as well as with a saddle weighted with lead shot. The saddle and lead together weighed 85 kilograms (about 187 pounds), which amounted to about 19 percent of the horses' body weights. 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...

...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."

How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry? | EquiSearch​


----------



## FrostedLilly

Yes, I agree. Like most scientific research, it isn't possible to reproduce every single scenario and exceptions thereof. What it is possible to do is generate repeated results that can provide guidelines for large numbers and maybe even by discipline where applicable. And many horses will never show signs of lameness. That doesn't mean damage isn't or hasn't occurred. I think more research definitely needs to happen, but I'm glad that more awareness is being drawn to what can be a sensitive issue for many.


----------



## BarrelracingwithSkipper

tinyliny said:


> it may not be politically correct to say it, but I think riding a horse at 410, and riding it hard, is bordering on abuse. I do not see how it's possible to ride a horse , hard, at that weight for any length of time without causing damage to his body.


 
I agree this is not good at all and shouldn't be allowed especially on a horse so small. As for the original post I don't suggest it until you lose weight I feel that it isn't fair to the horse. Oh and congrats on losing weight!!!!!


----------



## CBXSteve

I'm embarrassed to make such a short post in reply to such a voluminous thread, but I can imagine your difficulty trying to come to a decision based upon all of the varying opinions in here.

My suggestion? Ask your vet.


----------



## DuckDodgers

CBXSteve said:


> I'm embarrassed to make such a short post in reply to such a voluminous thread, but I can imagine your difficulty trying to come to a decision based upon all of the varying opinions in here.
> 
> My suggestion? Ask your vet.


That's the tricky thing with stuff like this... it's not really cut and dry. It would be nice if it was as simple as following a guideline, or if everyone held the same opinion. The varying opinions do give the OP (and anyone else with a similar situation) lots of information to consider to arrive at a well-informed decision. And, of course, when in doubt anyone with a question about whether or not it's appropriate for them to ride a particular horse (due to weight, horse condition, health and lameness issues, etc) always ask your vet for their honest opinion.


----------



## Yogiwick

tinyliny said:


> it may not be politically correct to say it, but I think riding a horse at 410, and riding it hard, is bordering on abuse. I do not see how it's possible to ride a horse , hard, at that weight for any length of time without causing damage to his body.


My boyfriend is a tall 6'2" very stocky/husky guy. Atm he has "a few extra pounds" and at his heaviest was 280. A good weight for him would probably be 230.

Add 2 whole inches. Not that much...*410*!! He shouldn't be riding.

Arabs are strong horses. I would never let my boyfriend on my Arab and when I've joked about it he has been the one who said "no way!!"

A friend is ~200 and has a very stocky 14.2 QH. She is fine on him.

+100lbs and 1 hh it would probably be OK. On a thin poorly muscled not stocky horse? No way.

Congrats on your weight loss and goals. I sympathize with wanting to ride your own horse but you have a way to go yet.

If my boyfriend were to ride it would be my super stocky 15.3hh MFT and that would be at a walk for 5 minutes with a close eye on the horse. He is a beginner (never ridden) and were he to actually want to learn I would find a draft X or similar type (he does have a height "issue" as well).

Regarding % rules- they are meant to be a guideline, not "god's word" obviously there are other factors in play. As a guideline they are very useful.

The horse pictured is not ready for the rider described. That said as the rider continues to lose weight and the horse gains fitness it's a completely reasonable match. I don't think this horse is stocky at all. Weight is OK, he will look better as he gains condition. He's not actually 16hh (well technically yes) look at his back. He is a lot smaller than you think, but think he will do just fine for you when you're both ready. He's cute.


----------



## nikelodeon79

I'm going to come right out and say it. 

I don't believe the claim that a 410 lb person rode ANY horse, let alone one as small as claimed.

We're talking Biggest Loser size here. I simply cannot imagine a person that large being able to mount or balance.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CBXSteve

nikelodeon79 said:


> I'm going to come right out and say it.
> We're talking Biggest Loser size here. I simply cannot imagine a person that large being able to mount or balance.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There are numerous players in the NFL in that weight range that could probably mount a horse without touching it before landing (affect on horse not to be contemplated::shock.

Remember William Perry back in the olden days? 100 yard dash in 11 flat, standing vertical jump of 35 inches. 6th fastest player on the team, and he'd be a piker now.

A big boned 6'3", I am a beanpole when I weigh 250, and that has been quite a long time ago.


----------



## jaydee

Losing weight can be hard but when you have a reason to do it then its much easier
My 5ft 10 DH gradually piled weight on when he became pretty much desk bound in his job plus travelling a lot and eating in restaurants doesn't help. 
Even when at 280lb hos GP told him he'd reached the obese level he was still in denial - "oh I'm big boned"
Then he saw a video of himself riding his 16.3 well made WB X TB and was horrified so he went straight on a calorie controlled diet and by last summer was down to 160lb and has stayed there
He's now the rider he used to be and has been able to come off bold pressure meds and all his back pains and knee pains have gone away
It is worth the effort


----------



## Endiku

I used to volunteer at a farm where the farm owner was 5'5 and over 370 lbs and at the point where she was gasping for breath when walking across the 5 acre pasture to fill water buckets. Two years ago she decided enough was enough, and under the care of a professional, radically changed her diet and portion size and began to do zumba and an exercise regime tailored to her. For a while it was excruciating for her to get up and go, because her body rebelled against it- but then the weight just started FALLING off of her as she got fitter and continued to eat the way she should. She, 21 months later, looks PHENOMENAL, looks like she has aged backwards, and weighs a very healthy 150 lbs. The key is continuing to be active. 

I tell you that to give you hope. She is in her early 50s, but feels like she has just now come alive because she can do SO much more. She rides, she dances, she goes out and dolls up, she runs....she is a new person- and that is what motivates her! 

Set reasonable goals, but keep your eye on the prize. When I lose ____ I will ____. When I am at _____ I will do _____.


You can do it!!!


----------



## EquineBovine

What a good read!
Congrats on the weight loss and you do have a lovely horse. Keep at it!


----------



## BarrelracingwithSkipper

greentree said:


> Here is the story I tell everybody......
> 
> On my first endurance ride, the top 2 finishers showed for best condition, where they weigh rider with tack, and use that as part of the winning formula. The girl who won weighed 102, and the man in second weighed 410. He rides Arabians who probably don't weigh 975 lbs, 50 miles, and comes in top 10.
> 
> He lost some weight, but still weighed in at 310. He is 6'4".
> 
> I see nothing wrong with you riding.


 I'm sorry but you shouldn't tell that story to encourage any one to ride of they are that heavy on that small of a horse that is just terrible
if he was going to ride a horse at that weight it should never be such a small horse it is to much on the horses back


----------



## Goldilocks

Yikes im 220lb, and consider myself a huge rider. I won't ride anything in any sort of way under 17hh or 16hh heavy cobs. Noone here will either. It took me a while to find a school to take me. 

Im sorry to OP and anyone else but a 15.1 finer horse even if it is built for weight is NOT built for 200+lbs...

This is me on a 17+ mare (blue and white) and a 16.2 cob mare (grey), and i felt ok on her but i would not want to be any heavier. Ive ridden 14.2 heavy cobs and feel they are alomost balking, 15.2 cobs and they just tire out. If i want a proper ride i need a horse that can carry me.


----------



## Goldilocks

on a 15.1 and he did try his best but he genuinely was not able to do a proper ride with me.


----------



## kelseyannxo

tinyliny said:


> it may not be politically correct to say it, but I think riding a horse at 410, and riding it hard, is bordering on abuse. I do not see how it's possible to ride a horse , hard, at that weight for any length of time without causing damage to his body.


Agreed. They are big animals, but not invincible. I'm sorry if this is coming across as offensive, but I do agree with Tiny
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kelseyannxo

And, might I add, it seems to be people are taking this 20% rule too literally. I'm viewing it as a general guideline. Just because your horse does not show immediate consequences of carrying a heavier rider, it doesn't mean there are not long term consequences. 

For example, I'm a nurse. The lifting and pulling you do in this job over the years adds up to be a heck of a lot of strain on your back. (Even if you're lifting with proper body mechanics.) The fact of the matter is, anybody can lift a 110 pound patient and move them around in bed easily with little to no trouble. But that's not usually the case. We are usually lifting heavier patients who are too ill or too large to move on their own. Lifting and moving a larger person a few times a week for a couple of months probably won't do too much noticeable damage. How about 5, 10, 15 years down the road? Your back will start to wear out, and you'll know it. 

In my opinion, same thing goes for horses. We worry and talk about certain types of saddles being too painful for weak and bony backs. (Due to age, illness, breed, conformation, etc.) Is it too sensitive of a subject to discuss heavier riders? I am in no way trying to offend anyone, but like I mentioned, horses are not invincible just because they are much larger and stronger than we. 

I do think, OP, you should ask your vet. He/she will be able to tell you what's best. Congrats, on your weight loss, by the way. That's wonderful news! Keep it up. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

kelseyannxo said:


> And, might I add, it seems to be people are taking this 20% rule too literally. I'm viewing it as a general guideline. Just because your horse does not show immediate consequences of carrying a heavier rider, it doesn't mean there are not long term consequences...


The same could be said of the 15% rule, which some push. Or the 10% rule, which some now suggest. 

Basing a rule on something that is irrelevant makes no sense. And "percent of weight of the horse" makes no sense. 

Total weight applied to the structures of the leg, versus the size and internal strength of those structures, does make sense. And by that analysis, what counts is the horse having excess structural strength for its size - because that excess capacity is where the additional weight of the human resides. A horse with the structural load capacity of 1500 lbs who weighs 900 lbs has much more capacity in reserve (for a rider) than a 1400 lb horse with a structural load capacity of 1500 lbs.

While we have no good way to measure bone strength in a living horse, we can certainly compare the thickness of the legs to the total weight.

Muscle damage: at some sustained PSI, the muscle tissue on the back with be damaged by riding. I haven't seen this caused by rider weight. I've seen a lot of it from poor fitting saddles. Trooper has two white spots, one on each side of his wither. He was loaned to a ranch in Colorado, and they used him for cutting and roping with the wrong saddle. Also spurred him bloody. You can see the damage in this old picture:










However, the standard field load of the British Cavalry was 300 lbs. With good saddling, their horses did not get muscle damage. Dan Blocker, an actor, was 300-375 lbs and rode a 1200 lb horse in Bonanza. There were no white spots on his horse and the horse always looked willing and even happy being ridden. Pack horses were used for loads of up to 400 lbs, and didn't harm the back IF the saddling and weight distribution was done right. Done wrong, you could break a horse down in hours...

I've heard of a number of ex-competition horses with bad legs. I don't care if the rider is 90 lbs, if you ask a horse to max perform doing things that no horse willingly does on its own, you are asking for an injury. If I asked my horses to canter regularly on the trails near here, barefoot, they would have no feet in a few weeks.

Bandit had been in shoes for years. When we pulled the front ones, he limped a lot. The corral and a paved road were the only places he could walk without limping constantly. He also tended to stride out, even at a walk, with long strides. Since he has no shoes protecting his feet, he has learned to take shorter steps and leave his feet on the ground a little longer. His feet are toughening up, and after 6 weeks I think he is almost ready for trails again. But I've watch him literally learn to walk differently...and I've got a hunch that different way of walking and trotting will help keep his legs sound longer. 

I'm a life-long jogger, and joggers who have high protection shoes that then stride long in prep for races are the ones, IMHO, who have bad knees at 40. I don't run competitively, use cheaper shoes, pull back my stride because I cannot count on my shoes to protect me from pain...and I'm still jogging at 57.

At 160 lbs, even if I use the lighter Australian saddle, I break the 20% rule every time I ride. With the western saddle on my horses, I'm probably around 24%. (Bandit and Trooper are both under 850 lbs.) The only trouble I'm seeing with any of them is a lack of back muscle caused by not enough riding. If I ride them 6 times a week, they are simply healthier and stronger than when ridden 2 times a week. 

There was not a 20% rule in the Cavalry. Ive seen no data that supports such a rule, and have seen data that says it is wrong. Viewed from an engineering viewpoint, it makes no sense.

BTW - I can only dream of a vet who knows enough about riding to give intelligent advice on how much a horse can carry safely.

From another thread, to save myself time:



bsms said:


> _...I spent a good part of yesterday reading a book about chasing Villa in Mexico in 1916. The author, Col Frank Tompkins, includes this picture of him riding his stallion Kingfisher:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Lot of folks would tell you his equitation sucked. But during a 28 day period, he rode Kingfisher 580 miles thru the deserts and mountains of northern Mexico, on half rations most of the time. With gear and supplies, Kingfisher was carrying 220-250 lbs total - and Kingfisher weighed just under 800 lbs...so he was carrying 30% of his own weight. Tompkins wrote:"In this drive he had but little grain, and that corn which he had never before eaten, no hay and what dead grass he could get during the night...He negotiated the snows of the mountain passes, he sweated through the noon-day heat of the lower levels, and he shivered at night from the icy winds of these high altitudes.
> 
> He never showed any signs of fatigue, never lost courage, and was a constant inspiration to his rider. He lost but little flesh, always moved with a quick springy step with head and tail alertly raised, animated and watchful. In battle he was fearless, being quite content to keep on the firing line without fuss or objection."​I'd argue that anyone who can load up an 800 lb stallion with 220-250 lbs of gear, ride him 581 miles in 28 days over some of the roughest terrain imaginable, and finish with "a quick springy step with head and tail alertly raised" is a pretty good rider.
> 
> I also underlined a section. Some folks think people only started caring about horses when 'natural horsemanship' became known. Yet a cavalry officer in 1916 spoke of being inspired by his horse. Hmmm....:grin:_
> 
> In one passage, he wrote of using a slower trot to avoid "wasting flesh". That phrase stuck with me - "wasting flesh". In another book ("Riding and Hunting", M. Horace Hayes, 1901) the author writes:"This style may be suitable for a three or four miles drive in the Park or in Town during the season, but it is not "business" from a horseman's view, because it entails a waste of muscular power. We may see a similar needless expenditure of force..."​That ideal of horsemanship appeals to me, perhaps as a leftover reflection of Littauer's - If I'm going to ride a horse, I should try to minimize the effort required from my mount, who would be quite happy to sit around eating. Although that isn't true for horses who live in corrals, as mine do. I think Bandit LIKES to get out, even if it is a little scary at times.
> 
> The cavalry officer's equitation was driven by the need to carry another 100 lbs of gear and food, and he needed to fit on wherever was left. I have more options, but want to learn to ride Bandit in a way that will always leave him "with a quick springy step with head and tail alertly raised, animated and watchful. In battle...fearless..."
> 
> OK, I'll gladly skip the battles. But I need to work on a position and approach that involves as little work for my horse as I can. At a minimum, I need to avoid being braced in a chair seat! "_Bumpity, Bumpity, Bumpity_" is no way to ride!


----------



## blue eyed pony

At nearly 50kg (110lb) perhaps I'm not really qualified to comment, but I will say the 10% rule some people are preaching is ridiculous. And so is the 20% rule and any other rule anybody comes up with.

I had a horse who weighed 550kg (1210lb) or thereabouts, at ideal weight. He was short, but solid. PLENTY of bone. But he couldn't carry a rider who weighed more than 70kg (~155lb) - or 12.8% of his weight - because he had an extremely long back. I had a balanced rider only slightly over that margin ride him and he was sore for days afterwards, despite his saddle fitting beautifully.

Conversely, I had a horse who weighed 485kg (1070lb) to my 50 (110lb) and yes, I was slightly over the 10% rule. She carried me fine. I don't think she even noticed honestly. She also carried my 110kg (242.5lb) mother with ease, at 22.67% of her body weight. And none of these weights are including saddles. Her new owner, and current rider, is only small, but she never had any trouble with a heavier (balanced) rider. This is a Thoroughbred at around 16hh so a relatively slender horse, but fit and with good strong legs and a good strong back.

Percentages are and only ever will be a guideline.

However at nearly 300lb I would suggest the OP lose some more weight before riding a slender high-withered 16hh Saddlebred. They are notorious for weak backs and while the horse in question does have good bone, you don't want to hurt his back. In the meantime I don't see any issue with you riding a solid, short-backed QH, provided that QH has good bone and not the stick legs you see so often on the modern types.


----------



## greentree

Strange that none of the vets at all these endurance rides advise that he is too heavy for his horses, as he wins Best Condition awards. In 17 years of AERC ride history.


----------



## TheVet

tinyliny said:


> it may not be politically correct to say it, but I think riding a horse at 410, and riding it hard, is bordering on abuse. I do not see how it's possible to ride a horse , hard, at that weight for any length of time without causing damage to his body.


Horses have no problem carrying up to 20% of their body weight, which translates into an average 1,200 pound horse being able to carry a total of 240 pounds. small Horses can carry up to 20% of their body weight. But, my grandfather rides a very stocky TWH that's 16.1 and he puts 270 pounds on him with his own weight and at least 50 with his tack so about 320 pounds and he rides his horse up in the mountains and our vet sees nothing scientifically wrong with this.


----------



## Yogiwick

People are way too stuck on numbers. You could have a nice big horse with nice thick legs and horrible conformation and it won't carry as much as you'd think (see blueeyedponies example).

I think "20%" is a good general rule mostly because when I crunch the numbers AFTER seeing a horse and rider it usually works out. However, that's an in general. A lot of these other numbers are just thrown out.

I agree that bone strength is important but again it's definitely not the only factor. I don't think saying "oh your horse has thick legs so go ahead and hop on" is necessarily a good idea to promote since as we all know people will blindly follow advice and not fine tune it to their own situation.

Also agree kelseyann has an excellent point- it's about long term effects. Within reason a heavier rider can hop on a smaller horse, that's not to say if the rider rode that horse regularly there wouldn't be long term effects.

There's a heavier rider at my old barn who insists on riding the small/spindly build TBs (with poor conformation) because she likes the type. Strange how her horses come up lame.... just because they don't stagger when she gets on (which I've seen happen before.. it's not funny) doesn't mean it's a good match.

I saw her with a 15.2 nice heavy set gelding (some sort of cob or draft cross). He would of been perfect for her.

I disagree that just because you're (slightly) over 200 means you need a 17hh horse. That's a little extreme. Also taller horses are not necessarily stronger and many draft types are not built for riding. I do think 200 should be very careful and pick a suitable horse. I wouldn't put my bf on my Arab and would only put him on the stocky 15.3 MFT to be lead around once or twice. That said in many ways the Arab is stronger than the MFT. I don't think you need some behemoth horse though.


----------



## Saddlebag

What seems to have been skimmed over is what too much weight does to the joints. Any vet can tell you about this. Horses were never meant to carry weight, their backs are designed for quick sprints. Horses fare better in harness as the back is bearing little weight. How many obese people are needing new hips or knees by the time they're 40? Our joints were not designed to carry a lot of extra weight full time.


----------



## TheVet

bsms said:


> kelseyannxo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, might I add, it seems to be people are taking this 20% rule too literally. I'm viewing it as a general guideline. Just because your horse does not show immediate consequences of carrying a heavier rider, it doesn't mean there are not long term consequences...
> 
> 
> 
> The same could be said of the 15% rule, which some push. Or the 10% rule, which some now suggest.
> 
> Basing a rule on something that is irrelevant makes no sense. And "percent of weight of the horse" makes no sense.
> 
> Total weight applied to the structures of the leg, versus the size and internal strength of those structures, does make sense. And by that analysis, what counts is the horse having excess structural strength for its size - because that excess capacity is where the additional weight of the human resides. A horse with the structural load capacity of 1500 lbs who weighs 900 lbs has much more capacity in reserve (for a rider) than a 1400 lb horse with a structural load capacity of 1500 lbs.
> 
> While we have no good way to measure bone strength in a living horse, we can certainly compare the thickness of the legs to the total weight.
> 
> Muscle damage: at some sustained PSI, the muscle tissue on the back with be damaged by riding. I haven't seen this caused by rider weight. I've seen a lot of it from poor fitting saddles. Trooper has two white spots, one on each side of his wither. He was loaned to a ranch in Colorado, and they used him for cutting and roping with the wrong saddle. Also spurred him bloody. You can see the damage in this old picture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the standard field load of the British Cavalry was 300 lbs. With good saddling, their horses did not get muscle damage. Dan Blocker, an actor, was 300-375 lbs and rode a 1200 lb horse in Bonanza. There were no white spots on his horse and the horse always looked willing and even happy being ridden. Pack horses were used for loads of up to 400 lbs, and didn't harm the back IF the saddling and weight distribution was done right. Done wrong, you could break a horse down in hours...
> 
> I've heard of a number of ex-competition horses with bad legs. I don't care if the rider is 90 lbs, if you ask a horse to max perform doing things that no horse willingly does on its own, you are asking for an injury. If I asked my horses to canter regularly on the trails near here, barefoot, they would have no feet in a few weeks.
> 
> Bandit had been in shoes for years. When we pulled the front ones, he limped a lot. The corral and a paved road were the only places he could walk without limping constantly. He also tended to stride out, even at a walk, with long strides. Since he has no shoes protecting his feet, he has learned to take shorter steps and leave his feet on the ground a little longer. His feet are toughening up, and after 6 weeks I think he is almost ready for trails again. But I've watch him literally learn to walk differently...and I've got a hunch that different way of walking and trotting will help keep his legs sound longer.
> 
> I'm a life-long jogger, and joggers who have high protection shoes that then stride long in prep for races are the ones, IMHO, who have bad knees at 40. I don't run competitively, use cheaper shoes, pull back my stride because I cannot count on my shoes to protect me from pain...and I'm still jogging at 57.
> 
> At 160 lbs, even if I use the lighter Australian saddle, I break the 20% rule every time I ride. With the western saddle on my horses, I'm probably around 24%. (Bandit and Trooper are both under 850 lbs.) The only trouble I'm seeing with any of them is a lack of back muscle caused by not enough riding. If I ride them 6 times a week, they are simply healthier and stronger than when ridden 2 times a week.
> 
> There was not a 20% rule in the Cavalry. Ive seen no data that supports such a rule, and have seen data that says it is wrong. Viewed from an engineering viewpoint, it makes no sense.
> 
> BTW - I can only dream of a vet who knows enough about riding to give intelligent advice on how much a horse can carry safely.
> 
> From another thread, to save myself time:
> 
> 
> 
> bsms said:
> 
> 
> 
> _...I spent a good part of yesterday reading a book about chasing Villa in Mexico in 1916. The author, Col Frank Tompkins, includes this picture of him riding his stallion Kingfisher:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Lot of folks would tell you his equitation sucked. But during a 28 day period, he rode Kingfisher 580 miles thru the deserts and mountains of northern Mexico, on half rations most of the time. With gear and supplies, Kingfisher was carrying 220-250 lbs total - and Kingfisher weighed just under 800 lbs...so he was carrying 30% of his own weight. Tompkins wrote:"In this drive he had but little grain, and that corn which he had never before eaten, no hay and what dead grass he could get during the night...He negotiated the snows of the mountain passes, he sweated through the noon-day heat of the lower levels, and he shivered at night from the icy winds of these high altitudes.
> 
> He never showed any signs of fatigue, never lost courage, and was a constant inspiration to his rider. He lost but little flesh, always moved with a quick springy step with head and tail alertly raised, animated and watchful. In battle he was fearless, being quite content to keep on the firing line without fuss or objection."​I'd argue that anyone who can load up an 800 lb stallion with 220-250 lbs of gear, ride him 581 miles in 28 days over some of the roughest terrain imaginable, and finish with "a quick springy step with head and tail alertly raised" is a pretty good rider.
> 
> I also underlined a section. Some folks think people only started caring about horses when 'natural horsemanship' became known. Yet a cavalry officer in 1916 spoke of being inspired by his horse. Hmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> In one passage, he wrote of using a slower trot to avoid "wasting flesh". That phrase stuck with me - "wasting flesh". In another book ("Riding and Hunting", M. Horace Hayes, 1901) the author writes:"This style may be suitable for a three or four miles drive in the Park or in Town during the season, but it is not "business" from a horseman's view, because it entails a waste of muscular power. We may see a similar needless expenditure of force..."​That ideal of horsemanship appeals to me, perhaps as a leftover reflection of Littauer's - If I'm going to ride a horse, I should try to minimize the effort required from my mount, who would be quite happy to sit around eating. Although that isn't true for horses who live in corrals, as mine do. I think Bandit LIKES to get out, even if it is a little scary at times.
> 
> The cavalry officer's equitation was driven by the need to carry another 100 lbs of gear and food, and he needed to fit on wherever was left. I have more options, but want to learn to ride Bandit in a way that will always leave him "with a quick springy step with head and tail alertly raised, animated and watchful. In battle...fearless..."
> 
> OK, I'll gladly skip the battles. But I need to work on a position and approach that involves as little work for my horse as I can. At a minimum, I need to avoid being braced in a chair seat! "_Bumpity, Bumpity, Bumpity_" is no way to ride!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Then again these were very stocky strong built horses


----------



## bsms

TheVet said:


> Then again these were very stocky strong built horses


Yes. Well built 800-850 lb horses, who were not carrying their maximum safe weight at 160 lbs. Two days ago, Trooper carried a guy who is a head taller than my 5'8"...I'd guess Trooper was at 28%. The guy has been riding his entire life and Trooper carried him with ease. Acted energetic, happy to trot, alert and looking around. No sign of difficulty or soreness. But of course, Trooper wasn't being asked to jump fences, turn around barrels or perform high level dressage movements. When Trooper was a ranch horse, he sometimes carried weights over 30% all day in the mountains - and didn't become sore. But he was mostly walking at the time.

If someone is concerned they are too heavy to ride a horse, one of the questions needs to be: "To do what?"

If they are happy walking or trotting a horse down a simple trail or road, as I am, then they will stress a horse less than someone who wants to compete. With a poor fitting saddle, you can sore a horse at 15% of bodyweight. I've watched Trooper pin his ears back when my 100 lb DIL was learning to canter on him, but I could throw my 180+ lbs on his back and he'd canter happily.

I simply find "20% of body weight" to be simplistic to the point of being misleading. A 1500 lb halter-bred QH with tiny feet might not be able to safely carry ANY weight. It certainly would not be ideal for a 250 lb rider with a big saddle - yet 20% implies a total weight of 300 lbs would be "safe".

If someone finds "20% of the horse's weight" helpful...well, not my monkey, not my show. They can do as they see fit. I simply see no added value in 20% vs asking what the person wants to do and how the horse is built.


----------



## Fellpony

I worked out I weigh about 25% of my fell pony's weight and for the 4 years she has carried me out riding/hacking with ease. She is showing no signs of wear and tear. I have now offered her on loan to a rider from my yard who is a lot lighter weight then me to compete for me. She is now doing a lot faster work and will be out doing Competative Endurance Rides this next year where as I did the short PR/Endurance rides.

I have switched to a 500Kg Highland who is 14.1 hh And feel much more suited to her height and size. I am still around 23%-24% her weigh ratio I would say. She doesnt struggle with me and I am currently getting my confidence back to take her Endurance riding  I am choosing to lose weight for both of us. But if you know anything about British Native Ponies most of the large breeds were bred to carry weight...Fells ( 13_14 hh) and Dales (14 - 14.2hh )used to carry large loads of wool and lead all day long 8 hours continuously down the old pack trails to markets9 16-18 stones of wool for Fells and lead for Dales ponies). And Highlands carry full grown stags off the mountain sides all day long often weighing upto 22 stone ( the stags)

I feel as a larger rider i should have saddles fitted and checked regularly to make sure she is happy its my duty. I currently ride in a 18 inch WH saddle whicch is XXXwide due to the shape and size of Highlands they are difficult to fit and saddle for them are harder to find.


----------



## EquineBovine

Fellpony - BEAUTIFUL pony. I miss the Native ponies. You just can't get them in NZ. More photos please


----------



## GingersGal

I can't judge because I haven't watched you ride, but I would say depending on how you ride, how long and how you are built, are the main things you need to think of.
for example if you were top heavy you may hunch over, or too much belly could change your riding seat and weight distribution.
nobody can say for sure without observing you, but if your Quarter horse/Tank ride is a muscular athlete a bit like our cobs then ride away! Rxxx.


----------



## Palomine

Yes, you are too heavy to be riding, any horse in my thoughts.

I weigh 240, with saddle and pad you are talking easily another 40 lbs for 280 or more. My horse is around 1200 lbs, so bareback would be pushing it. I don't ride because of my weight.

Not fair to my horse, and hard as well on saddle too.

The weight of the rider, no matter how balanced or light they are, is over the span between the legs. Not like you are going to be sitting over either set of legs, nor are you draped over the spine so at least some weight would be over legs.

The damage to living tissue is rarely thought about, but you can't put that much weight on a living creature without doing damage. The weight you carry, ruins your shoes, chairs, as well as your joints too. And the fact that so many now weigh way more than they should, has hospitals buying extra large wheelchairs, gurneys, beds, chairs, and installing toilets for obese people.

And no one at 400 or more pounds should be riding, period.


----------



## Nickers2002

With my saddle I'm about at about 22% of Nick. Now I realize this is close to the 20%, but my husband is around 30-35% and Nick has no problem with him. He doesn't ride him hard or often though.

I think if you get your horses fitness level up a bit and see where you are at that time - you may be just fine


----------



## bsms

I rode Cowboy yesterday at around 28-30%...not real certain what Cowboy's weight is. Trooper, the Appy, had his weight estimated as 835 by a vet. We did 1.5 hours, all hilly and much of it rocky. At the end, he was tired. No sign of soreness rubbing his back, but he was tired. Since it was only his third time being ridden in 3 months, I had taken him further than was fair to him. But Cowboy is one of those horses who will complain if it hurts. That was one of the reasons no one wanted him when he was being given away - he gets upset when someone rides him painfully and they blamed HIM for "resisting"...:evil:








​ 







​ 
I plan to start riding him a couple times a week. He's a very alert but sensible little horse. At 13 hands, his back is wider than Bandit is at 15 hands. He has thick legs, a short & solid back, excellent balance & great hooves. If I had to choose who could handle weight better, Cowboy or Bandit, I'd say Cowboy. Both are built well for trail riding.


----------



## Saddlebag

While heavy riders seem concerned about how much weight the back will support, there's seldom thought given to what it does to the joints. How many slim people need knee surgery by 45 yrs, yet our hospital's main knee surgeries are for those between 35 and 45 for those who are carrying way more weight than they should. One local man is so heavy the bones in his feet are crumbling. This same thing happens in horses except there's no surgery to help them.


----------



## TheVet

Let's get this straightened out, just because your horse weighs a lot doesn't mean he can carry 20% or however much of his body weight. For example if your horse weighs 950 that doesn't mean he can carry 300 pounds. One of my horses weighs 1,237 and he can't carry butt around 200 pounds because he's FAT!! So just because your horse weighs more doesn't mean he can carry more! Also yes horses in Calvary did carry 400 pounds in gear and everything BUTT, they were sticky horses that were built for that that's why you did see any Arabians in the Calvary. My opinion. Please respect it.


----------



## BiologyBrain

This has obviously been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum...

To my way of thinking, go with your gut feeling. You obviously care about your horse. You know you need to build up his top-line muscles and otherwise get him more fit to carry any rider a significant distance/time. So go about doing that however you like. While modern show ASBs are light-boned and just fancy prancy horses, there are some lines of ASBs that are just solid working horses with good bones and good backs. Your boy may well be one of those. Evaluate him harshly with a critical eye paying close attention to the size of his cannon bones and the length of his back and loin. Bigger cannon bones and a shorter back and loin will enable him to carry a rider more effectively for a longer distance/time. If he has a fault in one of those areas, you have to be prepared to compensate or compromise somewhere else. If his back is a little long or his loin is weak, you'll have to be extra sure to build his top-line and work him as collected as you can to keep his back rounded instead of hollowed to better support your weight. If his legs aren't well-boned, you' could consider using supportive boots and maybe even hoof boots with some sort of concussion protection in them. The biggest thing is to be completely honest and realistic with your evaluation of both yourself and your horse.

In the meantime, go on losing weight and riding the QH you have available. There is a lot to be said about good form being good for the horse as it is for the rider. After you get your ASB fit and ready to ride, be sure to get a good saddle fit for him especially well since its weight-distribution will be exceptionally important. 

Most of all though, don't forget that spending time with any horse is what you're after. Maybe if your critical view of your ASB shows that he may not be riding material for you, you could have him trained as a driving horse and enjoy time with him that way. I think you are well on your way to many enjoyable hours spent with your ASB though.


----------



## CurlyQ

In my youth, my father bought two mares who were the daughters of my sweet old thoroughbred, Flicka. He gave me the younger mare and took the older, Comanche, as his. She was a lovely thoroughbred, gentle with such heart--built large and with a sturdy look but she was horribly out of shape. Sadly, he took her to a trainer and that was the end of Comanche...she came back with irreparably damaged legs. We had to have her put down and that was the only time I ever saw my dad really cry. The trainer was a reputable large horsewoman; weight might have been an issue but it was not THE issue. Comanche was ridden harder than her physical condition could tolerate. Our horses will usually do just about anything we ask of them--we have to exercise discernment, care, compassion, restraint, and good judgement. Be your horse's advocate.


----------



## Yogiwick

TheVet said:


> Let's get this straightened out, just because your horse weighs a lot doesn't mean he can carry 20% or however much of his body weight. For example if your horse weighs 950 that doesn't mean he can carry 300 pounds. One of my horses weighs 1,237 and he can't carry butt around 200 pounds because he's FAT!! So just because your horse weighs more doesn't mean he can carry more! Also yes horses in Calvary did carry 400 pounds in gear and everything BUTT, they were sticky horses that were built for that that's why you did see any Arabians in the Calvary. My opinion. Please respect it.


And so many people have NO idea what the horse weighs (or how tall it is lol)


----------



## Triumvirate

All I'm going to say is that I used to could squat and deadlift around 200+ pounds. My one rep max for bench press was about 100 lbs. I was a 5'2" 125 pound _girl_ . I can't do that now lol but I am certainly working back up to it. Nevertheless, there were guys much taller than me and much bigger (not necessarily muscular though) who couldn't lift nearly as much weight as I could and they all weighed a lot more than me. 

What I'm trying to say is that even though a horse looks stockier, weighs more, is taller, etc, it does not mean that it can carry you better than a smaller, fitter horse. But that does not mean you should stay at your current weight as it will always be easier for a horse to carry a lighter rider than a heavier one (assuming they have the same seat/riding ability). But kudos to you for the weight you've lost! If you have any questions about weight loss, nutrition, working out, etc feel free to ask me because it's one of my passions besides riding (I'm into bodybuilding and powerlifting).

Also, don't forget about your horse's diet! For me to get as strong as I did, I had to eat around 3000 calories a day of mainly protein, vegetables, rice, and beans during my bulk. I made sure to hit all my macros. So tailor your horse's diet to one conducive for fitness instead of just feeding him a little bit of whatever. Now, I realize I'm comparing myself to a horse but biology and thermodynamics do tend to run the same. I hope this has helped you and I do realize this thread is a bit old haha.


----------

