# What are the long term consequences of only riding bareback on a horse?



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I prefer to ride bareback over western or english. Im a very casual rider. I much prefer trails over the arena.When I say bareback, I mean as in having a bareback pad on them, not completely natural riding.

Im trying to keep the weight down on my horse. My trainer says that horses can comfortably take 15-17% of their body weight on their back. So my horse is roughly 1000lbs (maybe bit more but I will say 1000lbs to be on the safe side). 15-17% is 150-170lbs and you have to factor in that 15-17% is INCLUDING the saddle.

One person brought it up with me saying that since I dont have a saddle right now, if I prefer to ride bareback, why bother getting a saddle then?

So my question is.

What are the long term health concerns of only riding bareback on a horse?

Is it true or false that its harder on a horses back to ride them with a bareback pad on them, vs a saddle? Even though a bareback pad IS considerably lighter.

I would love to save the money and not get a saddle and just ride her with the bareback pad on. But Im not going to do it if it will cause or can cause health problems for my horse down the road.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

A horse's spine is not designed to carry weight directly on it, in a concentrated area, thus bareback riding is okay for short periods, but a well fitted saddle is much easier on the horse's back
A saddle also allows you to distribute your weight between the seat and the stirrups, 
A saddle also allows you to have an independent seat, esp at speed, so you neither wind up hanging on the reins, nor using constant leg pressure, which will dull a horse to leg aids
Think about it. How would you rather carry weight-directly on your back, or using a well made back pack Try carrying a child on a hike, both ways, and you will get the picture


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Weight is secondary to fit and physics.
A bareback pad has no bridging. The first treeless saddles were flawed for the same reason, and treid to make up for the lack of bridging, using special pads.
The new treeless saddles are what I consider hybrids, between a treed saddle and treeless, as they have bridging to prevent direct loading of that spine


----------



## SeaBreezy (Jun 29, 2012)

Smilie pretty much said it. Though I understand the financial advantage of it, I couldn't imagine not having a saddle for my horse. There are certain situations where riding bareback is okay, but there are a lot of other situations where a saddle is required. Long trail rides, for example. Riding a horse bareback for 4,5 hours is really not ideal and can cause a sore back for the horse. Also, horses spook out on the trail, it happens. You're a lot more likely to stay on with a saddle. Oh yeah, and I don't know what I'd do without my saddle bags to carry drinks and my phone and stuff in lol.

Also, I think the general rule of thumb is that a 1000 lb horse can carry up to 200 lbs comfortably. It also depends on how sturdy his conformation is, how much muscling he has, yada yada. I'd even gander to say he can carry a bit more than 200 lbs as long as you don't do anything too strenuous.

Anyways, I think it would be wise to invest in a well-fitted saddle. Your horse will thank you for it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Rules involving percentages make no sense. And your trainer has no factual basis for his/her claim. This thread gets a bit heated, but covers all sides of the arguments pro & con:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/am-i-too-big-his-horse-605666/#post7779882

Good advice can be found here:

Heavier Riders' Guide

As for riding bareback...a good saddle distributes weight over a larger area of the back and protects the spine and muscle tissue. That does not make riding bareback wrong, but it probably puts MORE stress on the horse, not less.

FWIW, I have almost never ridden a horse at much under 25%. Mia was my heaviest horse at 900 lbs, and she had no trouble at all with my then 185 lbs plus saddle. Bandit is probably around 800 lbs...and he isn't showing any signs of trouble with my 160 lbs + 35 lb saddle. Trooper is about 850, same.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Thanks for the advice everyone.

So I guess I will get a saddle afterall. What is the best way in going about this? I would love to buy used if possible.

How do I know what size will fit her? I would like for a saddle as light as possible. Most are 40-60lbs and IMO thats too heavy. 20lbs would be nice, even 25.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

bsms said:


> Rules involving percentages make no sense. And your trainer has no factual basis for his/her claim. This thread gets a bit heated, but covers all sides of the arguments pro & con:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/am-i-too-big-his-horse-605666/#post7779882
> 
> ...


How legit/accurate do you think the trainers 15-17% sound?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

The 15-17% is hogwash. I've never heard anything less than 20% and most people in my area don't even go by that. 

You could always go synthetic. They usually weigh about 17lbs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ChitChatChet (Sep 9, 2013)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> The 15-17% is hogwash. I've never heard anything less than 20% and most people in my area don't even go by that.
> 
> You could always go synthetic. They usually weigh about 17lbs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


A vet friend of mine when I was figuring out how much a 300 lb Shetlands pony could carry said about 80lbs..... dead weight. 

Granted, Shetlands have a shorter spine I believe more like a donkey so they can handle greater weight.

The 2 Shetlands had no problems whatsoever packing that much weight over rugged terrain.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


> How legit/accurate do you think the trainers 15-17% sound?


Hogwash. There was a study done on horses who were kept out of riding shape. The horses had no riding done for 4 months, and then were ridden 45 minutes twice a month. The study looked at indication in the blood of stress, and also use trained horse massagers (sp?) to evaluate for signs of stress.

They found indicators of stress in the blood at 30%, with small indications around 25%. The massagers said they felt signs of stress at 25%, so the study concluded 20% was the 'maximum'. I look at those results and conclude 30% probably involves stress if the horse is out of shape. 25% might be a cause for concern, depending on the horse - and IF he is out of shape. 20% is probably a level just about any horse can handle, even if completely out of shape.

For myself: If I ride out mustang Cowboy (13.0 hands) with my western saddle, we're at 30%. He moves well, shows no sign of problems, will trot willingly after an hour of riding and rubbing him down afterward shows no sign of distress - but my saddle fits well, I try to ride light, and he's built like a tank. He also will struggle balancing my weight if I ask him to turn fast at speed.

At 25%, Mia and Trooper and Bandit and Lilly (range was around 24-27%) never showed any signs of trouble. Trooper is too lazy to ever do a floaty trot, but the other 3 would do so even at the end of the ride. They are also all at least 50% Arabian. Their weight range would be around 775-900, all short backs with good loins.

The US Cavalry bought horses by the millions assuming they would carry around a 25% load. But percentages are not meaningful. A 1400 lb halter bred QH with small feet can barely carry himself. Our 13.0 hand, maybe 700 lb mustang pony is now using a saddle I had made for my 15.3 hand horse. His legs are thick. He can undoubtedly handle heavier loads than many horses twice his size - because he is built for it.

But 15%? I'd need a 1300+ lb horse to meet that. I'm about to go ride an 800 lb horse. Bandit will be fine.

My wife riding Cowboy using our Abetta - around 17 lbs, as DraftyAiresMum noted:










The only picture of me on his back, using my 35 lb saddle made for Mia:


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> The 15-17% is hogwash. I've never heard anything less than 20% and most people in my area don't even go by that.
> 
> You could always go synthetic. They usually weigh about 17lbs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Synthetic leather you mean?

I also dont want to break the bank on a saddle. 

Thats probably the biggest reason why Ive prefered a bareback pad over a saddle, is because the saddles are too big and it gives way too much support for the rider. I already have very good balance, so for me balancing in a saddle is just not challenging to me.

I also prefer to have my feet hanging as opposed in stirrups.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Take a look at this thread:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/bareback-correct-position-612146/?highlight=bareback

Especially Foxtail Ranch's post #21. She has a pad you might really like.

I very much like to ride with a bareback pad, though am no expert.

Have not studied effects but see what others post. I don't really buy into the weight concentrated in all one spot concept.

I feel like there is a lot moving going on while riding bareback. And I certainly do not want all my weight bearing down on my tailbone directly onto a bony spine. It would not be comfortable for either horse or rider.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Look at Abettas and Wintecs. They're made out of a cordura material. Very strong and durable, but lightweight, and you don't have to worry about it getting dirty because you just hose it off. You can usually find used Abettas and Wintecs for $150-200, sometimes a little higher if it's like new.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

anndankev said:


> Take a look at this thread:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/bareback-correct-position-612146/?highlight=bareback
> 
> ...


Thanks.

I do see how a saddle would be more comforting for the horse in evenly spreading out the weight of the person on their back.

If I can get a relatively light saddle without breaking the bank ill do it.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> Look at Abettas and Wintecs. They're made out of a cordura material. Very strong and durable, but lightweight, and you don't have to worry about it getting dirty because you just hose it off. You can usually find used Abettas and Wintecs for $150-200, sometimes a little higher if it's like new.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thanks

Also can someone tell me how to measure what size saddle I need for my hrse?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

People don't use saddles because they are poor riders, lacking balance.
Try taking a cow down the4 fence, bareback, like my son is doing here



Take your horse on an 8 hour ride, bareback, on trails like this, and see how his back feels



How much are you going to carry with you, bareback?



The horse in this last picture is my gelding Einstein, who stood 16.3 HH
I have also ridden Carmen, carrying the same saddle, going the same distances, and she is only 14.1hh
Sure, i have ridden horses down to water, back from where we had piketed them, bareback, and I also learned to ride bareback when I was a kid, galloping those draft horses full blast, bareback, and with only a halter, so lack of balance is not why I use a saddle
Ask anyone who still makes a living, while riding horses, as on a working ranch, and they will tell you that the fit and qauility of that saddle count way, way ,way more than any weight of that saddle


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

FWIW: this was me on Cowboy today. Cowboy is 13.0 hands and probably around 700 lbs (no more than 750). I'm 160 in my skivvies, the saddle is a genuine roping one (35 lbs), so there is probably around 205 lbs on his back...28-29%:








​ 







​ 







​ 
We did 90+ minutes of riding today, almost on on rocky trails and all hilly. Mostly walking, but trotted about a half mile and sometimes in other places when the ground allowed for it. It was his third ride in 3 months, so he is NOT in riding shape. He was tired at the end...but he showed no signs of soreness. And he is the sort of horse who will let you know if he hurts. Tired is one thing, pain another.

I plan to start riding him a couple of times a week to get him in riding shape. For a cheap saddle, the Abettas are a great deal. Ours was $360 brand new. But our used Circle Y my youngest was using was $450, made before 1990 and will probably be useable after I'm dead. For the horse, good fit is more important than the saddle's weight. That is why I'm using the 35 lb saddle - it fits Cowboy better than the others.

For saddle fit, and easy way (western) is to look at the guides on horsesaddleshop.com:

Western Saddle Guide : Expert advice

Oh...and this was at a rest stop. I think it is a good thing to get off your horse once an hour. And this tiny wash was growing a lot of grass for this part of Arizona!


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Geez, you are so much shorter than your daughter. Esp in the third pic. LOL




PS Please don't take me wrong, I love short horses. Prefer them. Elwood could have gone Pony.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

anndankev said:


> Geez, you are so much shorter than your daughter. Esp in the third pic. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I gotta admit that I prefer tall horses, in most cases. People always used to ask me why I rode such a tall horse, when I had such bad knees
At the time, I was riding my gelding Einstein, who stood 16.3hh
My answer always was, that, a, he stood by whatever ground advantage there was, for me to mount, and once on, I had a 'Cadillac ride
I know this is a generality, but many shorter horses have 'pony movement
Carmen is only about 14.1hh, and she is a wonderful trail horse, but I gotta admit, her trot is nothing like that of Einstein or his half sister, Charlie, who is 16.1hh
Getting off topic a bit, esp when it comes to weight carrying. The horse that both of my kids learned to ride on, and who only stood about 14.1 hh, also served as our pack horse, packing in tent and all supplies. He has great bone, short back, and if you study engineering, correct structure translates to weight bearing capacity, way more that height or weight

This is Carmen, and she is only around 14.1hh, but she has carried me all day in the mountains, up and down steep hills



This is Frankie, packing out an elk, and dead weight is way more critical than that of a rider



Nechi, is the horse int he background,w ith the empty pack saddle



Here is Nechi carrying a load, and he was only around 14.1hh


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^Great pictures! I prefer Bandit's size - about 15 hands - but Cowboy is a fun ride too. Thick legs, great hooves, thick back - broader than Bandit's although Bandit is 8 inches taller, some attitude but a willing little horse even when he is getting tired, alert but sensible mind...there is a lot to say for a horse like that of any height. My daughter is a better fit for him, but she adores Trooper and only reluctantly rides any other horse.

His time as a lesson horse nearly ruined him, tho. He wasn't only given to us free, but he was delivered for free. No one wanted him because he was too rebellious. But it is becoming obvious that at least one of his previous 6 owners did good work with him. The idea that he can only carry a 90 lb rider with saddle is...well, things are more complex than that!


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> ... My daughter is a better fit for him, but she adores Trooper and only reluctantly rides any other horse. ...



From bits and pieces of your posts and stories I can see they have something special going on. I bet she could fall asleep on Trooper and he'd take her home safely.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> a well fitted saddle is much easier on the horse's back





SeaBreezy said:


> Riding a horse bareback for 4,5 hours is really not ideal and can cause a sore back for the horse.


I understand this argument in theory, but I have never seen any kind of study that backs it up. Furthermore, I have never heard of anyone actually riding bareback long enough to sore their horse's back, so not only do we lack a controlled study, there isn't even anecdotal evidence for this often repeated conclusion.

What is true, and what many horsemen have experienced, is that a saddle that doesn't fit can really hurt a horse. It is also true that buying a saddle is a crap shoot, and much money can be spent on saddles, buying high and selling low, trying to find one that fits.

For what it's worth, my horse if far more comfortable for me to ride bareback than with any saddle I've tried, and he has never complained.

I'm not saying Smilie and SeaBreezy are wrong, I just haven't seen any evidence that would lead me to think the issue is settled.

Oh, and I don't use a bareback pad. I can't jump high enough to get on when my big guy has the pad on.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Not sure it takes a formal study. The pressure distribution of a saddle results in a lower average PSI. If you compared the square inches my bony butt covers compared to my western saddle...no comparison! And pounds divided by square inches equals PSI, and the effects of pressure on the muscle tissue of horses has been studied.








​ 
This is a pressure reading using a flex saddle, which allows sagging in the middle:








​
Checking out a flex tree

How much more so a rider's rump! Of course, a well conditioned rider who keeps much of their weight in their thighs might be able to improve things, but not on very long rides.

Nor does buying a saddle need to involve a crap shoot. Steele has a good program at a reasonable price that helps one figure out what western saddle tree is needed. Many stores allow returns, so you can put a saddle on your horse and see how it fits. The solution to a bad fitting saddle is a good fitting saddle. The solution to having a rump smaller than a saddle is...eating?


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> Not sure it takes a formal study. The pressure distribution of a saddle results in a lower average PSI.


I agree, but the highest pressure using a saddle comes from the stirrups, which is why stirrups on a bareback pad are a bad idea, and why people my size and treeless saddles are sometimes a bad combination.

The only time I'm sure that bareback is hard on my horse is trotting, because my sitting trot is a train wreck.

Really, you've never lost money on a saddle that didn't fit?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Comparing stirrups on a saddle and stirrups on a bareback pad is like comparing apples and oranges, Joel. The stirrups on a saddle are attached to the tree, which is what distributes the weight evenly on the horse's back. The stirrups on a bareback pad are attached to one 3" wide strip of nylon webbing that puts all the weight put into the stirrups along that strip.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

You want studies, Joel, since logic alone does not satisfy you, then here you go-one done by Dr Hlliary Clayton. And, no, it is not the stirrups that are the critical difference, an din fact, stirrups are plus, far as distributing weight :

http://www.equinews.com/article/bareback-riding-it-comfortable-your-horse


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

mOre info, from this link

In a 2013 study of sitting the trot in either a conventional saddle or bareback, Clayton and colleagues found that riding bareback was associated with higher average and maximal pressure on the horse's back than riding with a saddle, and the pressure was concentrated beneath the rider’s seat bones. The team concluded that bareback riding might increase the risk of pressure-induced injury to the horse's back muscles in the mid-back beneath the area where the rider sits.

Studying the Rider-Saddle-Horse Interface | TheHorse.com


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The highest pressure on a saddle doesn't normally come from stirrups. From what I've seen, it normally comes from either a poor fitting saddle or putting the saddle too far forward so it interferes with the shoulders.

I've never NEEDED to buy a saddle that didn't fit. I've bought USED saddles and had them not fit, but new ones were always bought from a place that allowed returns.

Also:

"The objectives of this study were to measure forces and pressure profiles when riding with a conventional saddle compared to bareback riding. An electronic pressure mat was used to compare contact area, mean total force and pressure variables for one rider riding seven horses at sitting trot with a conventional saddle or bareback. The use of a saddle was associated with a larger contact area and higher mean total force compared with the bareback condition. Mass normalized mean total force for bareback riding was lower than expected based on the rider’s body mass, suggesting that shear forces exerted by the rider’s thighs were not being registered by the pressure mat. In spite of the lower total force, the bareback condition was associated with higher  average pressure, higher maximal pressure and larger area with mean pressure >11 kPa. Focal pressure concentrations were present beneath the rider’s ischial tuberosities in the area of the horse’s epaxial muscles when riding bareback but not when using a saddle. It was concluded that bareback riding was associated with focal pressure concentrations that may increase the risk of pressure-induced injury to the horse’s epaxial musculature. The findings also emphasized that researchers should remain cognizant of shear forces, which may not be registered by the pressure mat, but may contribute to the effects of riding on the horse’s back."

Forces and pressures on the horse?s back during bareback riding

"It can be a challenge to find a conventional saddle that is a good fit for both horse and rider. An increasing number of riders are purchasing treeless saddles because they are thought to fit a wider range of equine back shapes, but there is only limited research to support this theory. The objective of this study was to compare the total force and pressure distribution patterns on the horse’s back with conventional and treeless saddles. The experimental hypotheses were that the conventional saddle would distribute the force over a larger area with lower mean and maximal pressures than the treeless saddle. Eight horses were ridden by a single rider at sitting trot with conventional and treeless saddles. An electronic pressure mat measured total force, area of saddle contact, maximal pressure and area with mean pressure >11 kPa for 10 strides with each saddle. Univariate ANOVA (_P_ < 0.05) was used to detect differences between saddles.

Compared with the treeless saddle, the conventional saddle distributed the rider’s bodyweight over a larger area, had lower mean and maximal pressures and fewer sensors recording mean pressure >11 kPa. These findings suggested that the saddle tree was effective in distributing the weight of the saddle and rider over a larger area and in avoiding localized areas of force concentration."

Comparison of pressure distribution under a conventional saddle and a treeless saddle at sitting trot

Also: Advances in Animal Biosciences - Fulltext - Quantitative comparison of pressure distribution exerted by different numnahs beneath the saddle of a ridden horse - Cambridge Journals Online

Some more interesting reading here:

Influence of girth strap placement and panel flocking material on the saddle pressure pattern during riding of horses - BYSTR[]M - 2010 - Equine Veterinary Journal - Wiley Online Library


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

BSMS:
Compared with the treeless saddle, the conventional saddle distributed the rider’s bodyweight over a larger area, had lower mean and maximal pressures and fewer sensors recording mean pressure >11 kPa. These findings suggested that the saddle tree was effective in distributing the weight of the saddle and rider over a larger area and in avoiding localized areas of force concentration."

True, and why the newer 'treeless saddles, are in fact 'hybrids, as, they don't use a conventional tree, but use bridging now, versus those first treeless saddles with no spine relief.
That flaw, of placing all of the rider's weigh on the spine,in those original treeless saddles soon became evident, and was attempted to be compensated for, using 'special pads'
Next came 'treeless bareback saddles, far as a convention tree only, LOL!
Sometimes, if it ain't broke, don;t fix it.
When stirrups were first used in battle, it gave tremendous advantage to the military force using them
Here is an interesting article on how the invention of stirrups shaped history
Article: How the Stirrup Changed Our World, by Dan Derby


----------



## walkinthewalk (Jul 23, 2008)

I must be the only person on this forum that spent 80% of my life riding without a saddle and I have done some pretty rough riding, where there wasn't much of anything for a trail.

Sliding down one side of the hill and knee digging up the other. I used to ride anywhere from 4 - 8 hours and sometimes ten hours. I never sored any horse's back. 

The horse in my avatar was my best bud for 24 of his 27 years. The only time I put a saddle on him was when we costumed up for a parade.

I have had people ask me if I had Velcro on my butt. In my hay-day I was 5'5" and I kept my weight between 120 - 125 pounds when I was trail riding. Those few times I hit 130, I thought I was horribly overweight --- what I wouldn't give to be that "horribly overweight" again.

There are a few people who have exceptional balance and can ride without a saddle. If a person is overweight, I am sorry the balance needed to stay on the horse, for long periods and not sore it, just isn't there. 

A person also has to be honest about their inability to stay balanced when the horse spooks or starts digging hard when he hits the muddy river bank . Stay in a saddle, unless you're only taking a few twirls around an arena. It is safer and healthier for you and the horse.

Having said all that, even though I could trail ride in the roughest of places without a saddle and not fall off or sore my horse, I don't have what it takes to stay in the saddle for reining, running barrels, etc. That takes a whole nuther special kind of balance and ability


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie and BSMS, thanks for the links. That's why I read this forum!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

walkinthewalk said:


> I must be the only person on this forum that spent 80% of my life riding without a saddle and I have done some pretty rough riding, where there wasn't much of anything for a trail.
> 
> Sliding down one side of the hill and knee digging up the other. I used to ride anywhere from 4 - 8 hours and sometimes ten hours. I never sored any horse's back...


Thanks for sharing a real life experience. I doubt very many people sore their horse's back riding bareback, since the same pressure that would affect the horse's muscle tissue affects the human's as well. One of the studies I looked at said human skin and muscle is damaged at lower pressure than the tissue of a horse's back. In that case, a bareback rider may automatically adjust - riding within the human's limits would keep it within the horse's as well.

I learned to ride and spent the last 7 years riding a horse who reserved the right to explode without warning. Completely calm, then BOOM! Then often calm again. But for 5-10 seconds, and sometimes up to a minute, she would be a wild ride. I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be a good idea to ride her bareback in the desert or on pavement - which was most of our riding.

However, many of the weight limits being tossed around on the Internet are totally without factual basis. Saying a horse cannot safely handle over 15% of its weight is ridiculous. I feel pretty confident that the 15 lbs of an Abetta saddle offers more back protection via the tree than it harms by adding weight. For trail riding, I think that is true of my 35 lb saddle as well. I'm also certain my Australian saddle is all that kept me on Mia's back many times. If I had to choose between a good saddle and a helmet as safety gear, I'd choose a good saddle every time.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes, riding bareback is possible, and many horses no doubt remained sound, doing so, as we have that 'bell curve'
You know, where people that smoked all their life, never got lung cancer, and some on the opposite side of that bell curve, never smoked, but got lung cancer.

That does not change facts, far as the question asked.
I rode a lot bareback also, when i was younger, and have even ridden horses out in the mountains bareback, going back to base camp to get a pack saddle, after hubby shot something (unfortunately, had to ride that pack saddle back to the hunting camp!
And yes, some bareback riding improves your balance, so is also a good tool.
Some people also are very good riders, able to ride many chellenging places bareback
None of those facts changes the basic mechanics of putting all the weight directly on a horse's spine, bareback, nor that many horses ridden bareback a lot, loose that lightness to leg aids, that allow invisible leg cues
I also ride my show horses with spurs, and it is aheck of alot easier never to touch your horse with those spurs, unless you mean to, riding with a saddle.
If you watch that very impressive reining video, of Stacy Westfall, done without any tack, you will see that she does have spurs on, and that horse, while performing to a very high degree, does not truly too happy doing so, constantly swishing her tail
A well fitted saddle is a great tool, so why would one not use it?
It si also one thing to ride bareback, no matter the terraIn, on short rides that require you to take along not much, and quite another to really trail ride, where food, emergency supplies, a slicker, perhaps a spar hoof boot, and maybe a rifle are required. Also a bit off topic, esp if the Op is just making short rides close to home, but another aspect of riding in all kinds of terrain, that is applicable to me and many others
Just because you can do something, does not justify doing it, . I ride a lot without a helmet, and am not about to argue that it does not increase my risk of a head injury. Also started colts for years,without a helmet
Thus, while you can certainly ride bareback, there is a negative effect, doing so long term, and for extended periods of time


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Well Ive been doing my calling around and spoke with one of the saddle fitters here - she gave me some pointers.

I told her my situation how I prefer bareback over anything and if I could I would just get a newer and better quality bareback pad and go saddleless. She said this is possible and suggested that a company called Barefoot Saddle is what she would recommend.

Bareback Pads

Even the most expensive pad these guys have are considerably cheaper than any western saddle.

The fitter I spoke with said if i want to go the saddle route that I need to visit stores who allow you to take home saddles to try on before buying. Buy one I like, and then I pay her to visit my horse and fit that saddle on her. If it doesnt fit as well as it should, it goes back for another one.

She asked me some questions and suggested that because Im 6'2, and my horse is 14.2hh, to get a saddle with a rounded skirt and centre seat.

ive been calling around and these saddles are just so expensive! I would love to not have to break the bank for one, $500cdn and under I would be happy, but not sure if thats realistic. I just dont want to be shelling out $1500 for a saddle that I will be pleasure riding in and maybe 2-3 times a week.

I just want something that is comfortable for my horse, doesnt break my bank account, is light. Like I said, I have very good balance on bareback and if it means its a bit unsafer for me to trail ride with a bareback pad on vs a saddle, then it might be something i have to live with.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The Abetta saddles are not great saddles, but they are for their price. Light, strong and easy to care for.

" _if it means its a bit unsafer for me to trail ride with a bareback pad on vs a saddle, then it might be something I have to live with._"

Or die with. I've had one fall, in Jan 2009, and I'm still living with the pain. It only takes one time. The price of a saddle and helmet vs a lifetime of pain. Saddles, stirrups and bits were invented for a reason...


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

bsms said:


> The Abetta saddles are not great saddles, but they are for their price. Light, strong and easy to care for.
> 
> " _if it means its a bit unsafer for me to trail ride with a bareback pad on vs a saddle, then it might be something I have to live with._"
> 
> Or die with. I've had one fall, in Jan 2009, and I'm still living with the pain. It only takes one time. The price of a saddle and helmet vs a lifetime of pain. Saddles, stirrups and bits were invented for a reason...


Ok, looks like I'll get a saddle. I just hope I can find one at a good price without breaking the bank.

Im still unclear on how these "saddle fitters" who come out to see your horse and fit them, exactly work.

You go buy a saddle, Im guessing all the saddle fitters do is come out and put the saddle on and confirm if it fits or not? They do adjustments, etc. Im not questioning if a fitter is worth $150 to come out, but Im wondering if theyre more worth it for someone who wants to get a custom fit saddle done for thier horse.

Im not looking for custom fit (way too expensive), I just want a saddle that fits my horse without any pain or discomfort and not wanting to break the bank.

I know people say that synthetics arent good, is it because they dont last?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Some people don't like that synthetics are built on fiberglass trees (part of what makes them so light). The better synthetics (Abetta and Wintec) are built better.

A saddle fitter isn't absolutely necessary. I have never met a saddle fitter, much less used one. I researched and had a friend help me who knew what she was doing (she's also a trainer). I had an extremely hard-to-fit gelding, so I had to try A LOT of saddles. Never did find one that fit before his owner took him back.

Look at synthetic endurance saddles. They have rounded skirts and tend to have a more centered seat. Also, you might consider an Aussie saddle. I adored mine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> Some people don't like that synthetics are built on fiberglass trees (part of what makes them so light). The better synthetics (Abetta and Wintec) are built better.
> 
> A saddle fitter isn't absolutely necessary. I have never met a saddle fitter, much less used one. I researched and had a friend help me who knew what she was doing (she's also a trainer). I had an extremely hard-to-fit gelding, so I had to try A LOT of saddles. Never did find one that fit before his owner took him back.
> 
> ...


With my budget, I might have to go synthetic (Abetta or Wintec), hopefully there are canadian retailers for their products or Im SOL.

So you dont think a saddle fitter is worth paying $150 to come out? Once I get to know my new trainer more, I can see if she would be capable in helping me out with this. I would think any qualified trainer should know enough about saddle fitting eh?

I will take a look at synthetic endurance saddles, thanks.

Im questioning if a western saddle is the best for me, I might have to look at english saddles


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

If you have the right to return a saddle, you can take pictures of it and post it on HF. Lots of folks will chime in with suggestions on saddle fit. If you use the templates on horsesaddleshop.com, you can probably get a good enough fit.

For the front, here is what you look at - one example bad, one good:



















The "rock" of a saddle is how much it curves from front to back. Too much rock is less harmful than too little. Too little leads to "bridging" - a gap between the front and back. Then the ends will dig in and gouge the horse. Too much rock just distributes the weight over a smaller area than a perfect fit.

But it really isn't all that hard. Not worth paying $150 for, imho. Take good pictures, post them here:

Saddle Fitting Issues

In fact, read thru some of the threads on that sub-forum, and you'll learn enough to do OK. Also read here to learn more about saddles and fit than lots of folks EVER know:

Saddle fit - Western compared to English Part 3

Good luck with whatever you decide! And English saddles can be a lot of fun, particularly for someone coming from a bareback riding background.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

It's all about what you're comfortable in. I prefer an Aussie saddle because it has a suspended seat, puts me in a better position, and is more secure than an English saddle.

Something like this might work well for you:
http://m.statelinetack.com/item/kim...u^133916-adType^PLA-device^m-adid^40184736948
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

bsms said:


> If you have the right to return a saddle, you can take pictures of it and post it on HF. Lots of folks will chime in with suggestions on saddle fit. If you use the templates on horsesaddleshop.com, you can probably get a good enough fit.
> 
> For the front, here is what you look at - one example bad, one good:
> 
> ...


Thanks. I actually just got back from Greenhawk and looked at their in house brand (Supra) synthetic western saddles. Doesnt look bad for $400.

Also looked at the aussie saddle.
Leather Stock Saddle W/ Horn | RIW4005 | Greenhawk

Not sure if its centre seated with a rounded skirt or not.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> It's all about what you're comfortable in. I prefer an Aussie saddle because it has a suspended seat, puts me in a better position, and is more secure than an English saddle.
> 
> Something like this might work well for you:
> http://m.statelinetack.com/item/kim...u^133916-adType^PLA-device^m-adid^40184736948
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Im considering an aussie saddle. What are the pros and cons of it vs a western one?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

My Aussie was all leather and built on a wooden tree. Even with heavy wooden stirrups on it, it weighed maybe 21lbs. That's a far cry lighter than the majority of western saddles I've handled. I love the suspended seat. I like that it has a more English-type position than a sit-back-on-your-seat-pockets western position. I like that it offers a large amount of security via the poleys and deep seat. 

I prefer my Aussie saddles with the horn. The horn is useless and just gets in the way, IMO.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> My Aussie was all leather and built on a wooden tree. Even with heavy wooden stirrups on it, it weighed maybe 21lbs. That's a far cry lighter than the majority of western saddles I've handled. I love the suspended seat. I like that it has a more English-type position than a sit-back-on-your-seat-pockets western position. I like that it offers a large amount of security via the poleys and deep seat.
> 
> I prefer my Aussie saddles with the horn. The horn is useless and just gets in the way, IMO.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Would you still need to put a sheet under the aussie saddle?

This is forsure on my list to potentially try out.

I wish I had someone who could saddle shop with me cause I could use pointers on what to look for.

When I put it on, I will most likely have to get my trainer to do it since I wont be able to tell how well the saddle fits her. This is why Im tempted to get the saddle fitter to do it.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

I used a thin English-type pad under my Aussie and it worked well. If your saddle fits, you don't have to have a thick pad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NBEventer (Sep 15, 2012)

Whatever you do, avoid supra saddles. They are shoddy, unbalamced trees and rock and slide. Ive come across more then one on various types of horses and they all had the same issue. Look into used. There are lots of Facebook groups with used tack. Where in Canada are you?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I like Aussie saddles, but I think Abetta is a better saddle for $400. My Aussie-style saddle was $900. For that price, you could get a new Dakota or Corriente saddle. Dakota can make one on any Steele saddle tree, IIRC.

Used Aussie-style saddles are extremely variable. You can get a great deal, or get a nightmare.

Our old Circle Y was $450 used, and I expect it to be in service for another 25+ years. My youngest daughter is 17 and she'll probably keep the saddle as long as she rides. Maybe longer.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Hoofpic said:


> I just want a saddle that fits my horse without any pain or discomfort and not wanting to break the bank.
> 
> I know people say that synthetics arent good, is it because they dont last?


Fabtron is a manufacturer that has a good reputation among manufacturers of synthetics. At many tack shops, it is the only synthetic brand they will sell. Look at the Lady Trail and Easy Rider.

Horse Supplies | Horse Tack & Horse Equipment - Horse.com

For whatever reason, Australian saddles seem to sell for less than a similar quality Western saddle, so that might be a way to go too.


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

Saddle fitting is a tricky thing and you're not the first to doubt the $150 fee that comes with getting one out! 

It really depends on who you're getting out. Many saddle fitters just do a weekend course or even nothing at all. They are given to knowledge to identify if a saddle fits or not and why. Considering 95% of horse people seem to not be able to reliably to this themselves a saddle fitter can be good. 

However there are other saddle fitters who, at least for English saddles, can restuff a saddle to make it fit better. Often they have more extensive training. 

The real benefit of saddle fitters can actually be the opportunity to try saddles. For example, a saddle fitter I once used had about 10 saddles on consignment that you could try on your horse and was also linked up with a local saddlery. You could go to the local saddlery and choose a handful of saddles you liked and the saddle fitter would borrow the saddles and allow you to try them and advise on fit. 

As far as saddle cost goes... they aren't really that expensive. Don't get my wrong they seem it, but a good saddle is an investment. It's just the lump sum that throws you. 

Lets say you spend $50 on your horse every week all things considered, and that's quite a conservative amount really. And your saddle and horse have a useable life of 20 years. Over 20 years you will have spent $52,000 on your horse. And as far as your saddle goes, you would have spend what, $1500? That's not really much in the grand scheme of things. It works out about $1.40 a week. Even a $3000 dollar saddle which may end up lasting a lot longer than 20 years, that's only $2.80 a week. So about 2-4% of your entire horse riding costs, would be saddle. And that's a conservative number. 

A good saddle lasts a long, reduces horse and rider fatigue and often has pretty strong resale value.


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

Joel Reiter said:


> For whatever reason, Australian saddles seem to sell for less than a similar quality Western saddle, so that might be a way to go too.


That may be true but I guess that it would be important to understand that many "Aussie" saddles are Asia imports in the US and need to be compared with similar Asia import western saddles. 

With the exception of show type saddles, the cost of a nice American made western saddle would be comparable to a nice Australian made saddle, new or second hand. Here the nice Australian stock saddles start at around $3000. 

Surely you can pick up a nice aged Western saddle for a fair price, that is probably far better quality than the "Aussie" saddles over there?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

I paid $125 for my handmade Aussie saddle that was built on a nice wood tree.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Most Aussie saddles in the USA, like mine, are not made in Australia by Australians. Those saddles seem to start at $3000 and go up fast, if you can find them.

The DownUnder saddles are decent quality. So are some other brands. A DownUnder saddle tree has a 10 year warranty, which isn't bad. If you can find one used, they generally go cheap. But finding one that fits your horse used is tough. It is much easier to find a western saddle that fits and is of decent quality. Or English.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

NBEventer said:


> Whatever you do, avoid supra saddles. They are shoddy, unbalamced trees and rock and slide. Ive come across more then one on various types of horses and they all had the same issue. Look into used. There are lots of Facebook groups with used tack. Where in Canada are you?


Im in Calgary AB. Know any used tack groups on facebook?


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


> Im in Calgary AB. Know any used tack groups on facebook?


 Irvine tack and Trailer, near Crossfield, has a huge inventory of not just new saddles, but used ones
In fact, I recently traded in an Emour I had, when I bought my Billy Cook Trail saddle.
I am glad you are looking at getting a saddle, as I, like Cheri, feel you are pretty green with horses, and with just the ground issues your horse has, I don't really see her as a good bareback prospect for you at the moment, and perhaps not even a good choice for a horse, for you, at this time.
Hope you are working with a good trainer


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Far as price for a saddle, buy a good name brand used one, versus a cheap badly made new saddle.
The price of a good saddle is well worth the investment.
I bought my balance ride saddle, made by Vic Bennett, over 30 years ago I have used that saddle almost daily over the years, ridden many different horses with it, ridden countless mountain miles with it, and it is still my every day 'go to saddle'
It still looks great, fits almost very horse I ever used it on (except Carmen, who is different, and why I bought that Billy Cook just for her.
In fact, you can haul your horse to Irvines, as I did with Carmen, and have experienced staff fit that saddle for you
You use a pad under a saddle, not a sheet, and yes, you should use one with all saddles, if only to soak sweat and protect the saddle. (i/m thinking leather, as I don't like synthetic saddles, for several reasons.)
A rawhide tree has some give, while a synthetic saddle is rigid.Also, I like you, like in Alberta, where it can get very cold, and a lot of synthetic saddles can't take that
Oh, and I paid $1,300 for that saddle 30 some years ago, and it is still worth at least that. You can't buy a new Vic Bennett now for much less than $7,000


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Smilie said:


> Hoofpic said:
> 
> 
> > Im in Calgary AB. Know any used tack groups on facebook?
> ...


I did consider Irvines but they are too expensive for me. I called and they cheapest saddles they have are $1500.

I still confident about her and I. A challenge? Of course. But Im taking all the steps needed in getting there with her.


----------



## NBEventer (Sep 15, 2012)

There is a fb group western tack and saddles for sale alberta. Once you join that one, various ones should be recommended to you.


----------



## clwhizy (Aug 20, 2014)

Not sure if its been mentioned, but in Canada kijiji is a great place to find good deals on saddles. As others have said you're better off buying a good quality used saddle that fits both you and your horse.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> I prefer to ride bareback over western or english. Im a very casual rider. I much prefer trails over the arena.When I say bareback, I mean as in having a bareback pad on them, not completely natural riding.
> 
> Im trying to keep the weight down on my horse. My trainer says that horses can comfortably take 15-17% of their body weight on their back. So my horse is roughly 1000lbs (maybe bit more but I will say 1000lbs to be on the safe side). 15-17% is 150-170lbs and you have to factor in that 15-17% is INCLUDING the saddle.
> 
> ...


Not even going to bother reading all the replies so if I repeat something...sorry.

First. Riding a horse bareback has two impacts. 1. Unless you're able to keep your butt above the back for the entire ride you will spend at least part of the time (likely most or all of it) on the horse's spine. This is never a good thing. Nature did not design the horse to be ridden. It is however something we use them for anyway. 2. Without something more substantial than a thick pad, your "butt bones" (the ischial tuberosity, not the "tail bone") will apply large portions of your body weight to what ever small spot they are contacting on each side of the horse's back. This will eventually not feel good on whatever part of their back muscle the weight is being focused on. This is not to say it's a big problem if you ride bareback for limited times or on a limited bases. I've jumped on bareback with a piece of baling twine looped around the neck to catch cows that got out. My horse managed to survive it  and it wasn't worth saddling up just to ride down to get the mail or ride over to a remote pasture to do fence repair. However, for most riding a well fitting saddle is always the best option for your horse. It both protects the spine and distributes your weight over a larger area of the back muscles.

Second. Weight. Study show biochemical analysis of the effects on a horse at 20% or less of it's body weight have little or no effect. At 25% there is an measurable impact and it increases as the % go up. Additionally the tests show the recovery time for these measurements to return to normal increases as the weight % increase. After a certain level it can take days before the readings returned to normal. Now all this information is all well and good. I know people who love to point out that some endurance racers run races at upwards of 35% their horses weight and go on to claim that conditioning the horse changes the effects. Well, conditioning changes the horse's ability to deal with the effects, but just as with humans who run marathons, the biochemical changes still happen (they're just able to deal with it better...marathon runners still "hit the wall" at some point in the race). The horse being able to deal with more weight does not mean that it's not having an impact on it's body or making muscles sore. Endurance racing horses run hard races and then the riders let them recover. Just like human athletes recover after pushing their physical limits.
For the VAST majority of riders none of this weight stuff will matter a lot. Will your horse have the effects from carrying more than 20%? Yes. Are you likely to notice it by riding them even 10 hours a week? No. Most people ride no more than 1-3 days a week and the vast majority of it is for very short periods of time (an hour or two). A few times a year some might haul out to ride some trails, but that's generally the longest riding they do. So if you're at 30% of your horses weight (that includes saddle, etc...) and you ride as much as at least 90% of the riders in the US then you shouldn't have much to worry about. Yes, your horse will have the biochemical changes taking place (nothing will change that), but they'll have time to recover on the days you don't ride and you're unlikely to notice any change. You and your horse should be able to enjoy many blissful years under those conditions.
If, however, you decide to do some serious riding. Riding 5-8 hours a day, 4-6 days a week, doing about 20 miles a day (days and mileage varies with where you find a place to stop for the day or can stay for a couple of days rest), then you'll want to pay attention to the weight % (also loin width and cannon bone size also become important, as does a well fitting saddle that will provide the most displacement of weight). In those cases you will start to see the difference with the higher % of weight ratio. And I can tell you from experience (I messed up once as a very young man even though my horse and I were experienced I decided I'd take more, against my grandfather's advice....lesson learned) that it's not much fun being out away from home and your horse comes up sore. The trip is over until your horse recovers and that takes time.
Doubtful that you'll ever have to worry about that though . Long distance riders are such a small community. We seldom even know, let alone run into each other .


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_Study show biochemical analysis of the effects on a horse at 20% or less of it's body weight have little or no effect. At 25% there is an measurable impact and it increases as the % go up_."

That was the study that used out of shape horses. The horses were not ridden for 4 months, then only ridden 45 minutes every two weeks. That is not how my horses are ridden. It is like asking how far someone can jog without soreness, and choosing a couch potato to discover the answer. That is fine - if what you want to know is how far a couch potato can jog without muscle soreness or getting a callous. But it is totally irrelevant to how far a human can comfortably jog daily.

Secondly, the results were: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.

Loin width demonstrated a relationship to percentage of muscle soreness at 20, 25, and 30% of body weight. Indexing loin width and cannon bone circumference together, this trend was continued, with increased muscle soreness resulting when horses carried 25 and 30% of their body weights.

Horsesâ€™ Weight-Carrying Ability Studied | Equinews​Notice the blood work (Plasma lactate concentrations and levels of creatine kinase) indicated increased soreness at 30% - not at 25%. To find a problem with 25% in these couch potatoes, they had to use humans to massage the horses and decide if there was muscle soreness there. When you use humans to decide something, you introduce the possibility of bias."The same professional animal massage therapist did all muscle evaluations, using a scale from 0 (no pain detected) to 2.5 (severe pain elicited). Scores were given for 20 locations on each side of the horse. The score for a particular horse could thus range from 0 (no pain detected at any point) to 100 (severe pain detected at all 40 test sites)"​I had a horse massager look at Mia - once. She poked Mia in the back, Mia startled, and she said Mia had a very tender back and needed treatment. I said no, Mia just doesn't like people to poke her. Then I rode her for an hour, and quit because she had more energy than I did. My theory is that horses who do floaty trots for the fun of it do NOT have sore backs. But that may be my bias. Riding her at 25% on every ride, I was always more tired at the end that she was.

In any case, using very out of riding shape horses, the blood work showed no problems until 30%. Humans decided there was a problem at 25%, so they set 20% as their "safe level".

But I'm not buying what they are selling. I'm just not interested in what a "professional animal massage therapist" thinks happens with out of shape horses versus what I see when I ride, and watch others ride. I do trust the blood work. I don't doubt 30% is a significant load for an out of shape horse!

However, I'm a life-long jogger, with over 4 decades of jogging. Jogging will regularly leave me sore afterward. Sometimes thru the next day - more commonly now at 57 than at 17! After a back injury in 2009, I had to stop jogging for 5 years. The last 1.5 years has seen me slowly increase my distances from 1/4 mile to 4 miles. Getting back into running shape at 57 is much harder than at 13...but that doesn't mean it is bad for me, or that I should give up jogging and buy a walker.

Bandit was used for racing before coming here in May. He would brace his back like an I-beam if you asked him to trot, and sometimes did at a walk. He had one speed in any gait - fast. He now has 2 speeds in a walk and trot and we're working on three. His back isn't as relaxed and engaged as I would like, but he has improved a lot. He's around 800 lbs, so I'm riding him at 25% every time I get on his back. He's learning. I don't need to lose 40 lbs to safely ride him! 

There is no scientific basis for a 20% rule. Or 15%. Or ANY percent when applied without looking at how the horse is built, conditioned and ridden. And a prudent person would probably focus more on the legs than the back anyways...


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'll add this for looking at long term hard riding and weight:



bsms said:


> ... reading a book about chasing Villa in Mexico in 1916. The author, Col Frank Tompkins, includes this picture of him riding his stallion Kingfisher:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

bsms said:


> "_Study show biochemical analysis of the effects on a horse at 20% or less of it's body weight have little or no effect. At 25% there is an measurable impact and it increases as the % go up_."
> 
> That was the study that used out of shape horses. The horses were not ridden for 4 months, then only ridden 45 minutes every two weeks. That is not how my horses are ridden. It is like asking how far someone can jog without soreness, and choosing a couch potato to discover the answer. That is fine - if what you want to know is how far a couch potato can jog without muscle soreness or getting a callous. But it is totally irrelevant to how far a human can comfortably jog daily.
> 
> ...


You are free to believe what you want. You are, by your own admission from early post about this, speaking from ignorance of first hand knowledge / experience.

Before you go around saying it's not true or means nothing, go out and do it. Prove it's wrong. Load up your 800 lbs horse with 350 lbs and ride 500 miles in 5 weeks . I don't think you'll like the condition of your horse when (or even if) you finish. 

There was nothing in that study that said the horses were out of shape so what do you base that statement on....that they weren't running races or plowing fields? It only showed that for the test they were not worked hard, but equally and under varying loads. You only show one small clip from the study. And while everyone would have liked to study to be more extensive, it did explain why some things most of us already knew happen.

People who have ridden long distances pretty much all agree that weight is the killer (I've yet to hear one that says differently). It's the pounds, not the miles, that will break the horse down. We don't say that BECAUSE of the test. We knew it BEFORE the test. We say it from experience. Knowledge gained first hand. On horses that were not out of shape, but conditioned and ready to go.

I'll be interested in hearing how your 5 week ride from oh, AZ to Wyoming goes, on your horse carrying 35% of it's body weight, as soon as you get back.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

So I finally found a used saddle shop here (bit of a drive, so will have to do it next weekend) who has a bunch of used western saddles in under $1000.

They will allow me to try them on my horse first before buying and also have a 1 month trade in policy, if I decide i want something different I can get my full money back towards another saddle.

This is great news.

Still unsure if im going to pay a saddle fitter $150 to come out and try them on my horse or if I should just pay my new trainer (as one of our lessons) to do it instead.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

bsms said:


> I'll add this for looking at long term hard riding and weight:


 
Like I said. You do it and then you can talk. As for an Army officer's report. I was in the Army. I've seen reports written by someone trying make a point that were so full of crap they smelled like an outhouse . 

They found that out in the first Gulf War when they had to fly in techs from our outpost in Turkey to repair Quickfix units and keep them operational. Because in the 80's the brass ignored observations of the maintenance teams and listened to the glowing report given by the OIC. 

And I'll play your game here.
We have nothing to go on there but the word of one officer. We don't have any reliable medical report on the condition of the horse. Nothing to confirm what this officer claims. Only his unsupported claim of what happened and how well off his horse was.
While we have the experience of many long distance riders who say something different.

I'll be waiting for the report from your ride.


----------



## NBEventer (Sep 15, 2012)

By the 20% theory I'm almost to heavy for my 22 year old horse and my trainer certainly is. Yet I competed heavily on her for years in eventing and jumpers, my trainer competed her eventing as well. And she is still sound and happy/healthy and able to compete. Her back is checked regularly by a certified chiro and massage therapist and there are no issues. I've done many long distance rides on her with no complaints as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

That's great that you found a used saddle place, Hoofpic. 

Personally, I'd have your trainer help you fitting the saddle, assuming she knows what she's doing.

You can also do a wither tracing and take it with you to get a basic idea if a saddle might fit your horse.

How to Make a Wither Tracing for Saddle Fitting


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_You are, by your own admission from early post about this, speaking from ignorance of first hand knowledge / experience_."

Actually, I'm saying what I see on my horses, and adding the experiences of others. I've never ridden a horse at 20% or below. Ever.

"_Load up your 800 lbs horse with 350 lbs and ride 500 miles in 5 weeks_"

Nope. But Col Thompins loaded 220-250 on HIS 800 lb horse, and rode him for a month in some of the hardest terrain imaginable. I see no reason why we should pretend he didn't do it. Sea level to 9,000 feet, snow to 100+ deserts, rocks - check out the mountains of northern Mexico and southern Arizona sometime.

"_We have nothing to go on there but the word of one officer. We don't have any reliable medical report on the condition of the horse._"

He was part of a UNIT. He was not the only one. ALL the men and horses did it. It was the Army. They kept a log book. They recorded everything. As the commander, he filed a report. But they DID go those places, an were in battles. Kind of hard to fake it. I spent 25 years in. I've seen officer file false reports, but it is kind of hard to fake battles fought, or get resupplied at places you didn't go to.

"_There was nothing in that study that said the horses were out of shape so what do you base that statement on._.."

They were not ridden for FOUR MONTHS. Then they were ridden for 45 minutes, then given 2 weeks without riding before being ridden for another 45 minutes. What kind of shape do YOU think they were in?

"_People who have ridden long distances pretty much all agree that weight is the killer (I've yet to hear one that says differently). It's the pounds, not the miles, that will break the horse down_."

If you put enough weight, yes. Put 10,000 lbs on a horse, and you will kill it every time! But that isn't what is being asked.

Is the limit based on a percentage of body weight? If so, is that limit 15%? 17% 20%? 25%? 30%? Is the back the limiting factor, or the legs?

The best answer is it depends on the horse, the rider, and what they are doing. But there is no scientific basis for 20%. The US Cavalry used 25% as their normal expectation - with thousands of horses and riders covering millions of miles.

"_We don't say that BECAUSE of the test. We knew it BEFORE the test. We say it from experience._"

Really? If you ride at 25%, you normally break your horse down? I'm sorry to hear that. The cavalry didn't. Millions of riders don't. I don't. I must have missed the part in the OP's question where she asked about riding 50 miles a day for a month on end.

No, I don't ride my horses 50 miles a day. MY back doesn't allow it. My friend in Utah and his sons ride 20-50 miles a day, though. He's bigger than me, and his sons are bigger than him. Trooper is the son of their favorite ranch stallion, and Trooper is about 850 lbs - like their favorite stallion. 850 lb horse, with 200+ lb guy and a roping saddle and gear, riding 20-50 miles a day in rough country. Do the math.

Bandit braced his back, but his previous owner rode him 30+ miles regularly - and his previous owner is probably 220 in his socks. That was probably too much for Bandit. Bandit is an uncommonly slender horse. Let the horse tell you his limit! But he's learning to use his back and relax with me - at 25%. But of course, the experience of the cavalry, ranchers, endurance riders, etc - they don't count, and neither do I.

I've started riding Cowboy at 30%. I'll let you know if there are any problems. So far...he gets tired after an hour. But he's only been ridden 3 times in the last 3 months, so he is a couch potato horse. Now. He won't be 6 months from now. And I'll never ride him 30 miles because MY back cannot handle it. But that does NOT mean my experience will be meaningless. It is pretty typical of recreational riders - riding a few hours a day, several days a week.

But yeah, folks CAN and HAVE ridden much harder terrain than you, and done the miles, and had their horses hold up fine - at 30%. LOTS of them have done it. Your experience does not negate theirs. Sorry to hear your horses can only handle 20%.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

^ I should also note, and this is VERY important, my horse is only 4 years old. I know horses at this age are still growing structurally and muscularly, and cant be worked as often as a seasoned mare can.

This is another thing, I have to make sure my mare isnt overworked. I cant remember where it was, but awhile back I was looking at a chart that said a 4 year old horse can only be ridden max 2-3 times a week. Once they get up to 5 or 6, then their capable work load increases.


----------



## BreezylBeezyl (Mar 25, 2014)

Like others have said, riding bareback for long periods of time can be detrimental to a horse's back. The purpose of a saddle is to redistribute the weight of the rider over a larger surface area. 

Think about this, which hurts more: 10 pounds of pressure on your arm from a needle, or 10 pounds of pressure on your arm from 2x4 plank of wood? The larger the surface area, the less pressure there is.

It's also this same science that allows people to walk across a bed of nails without any damage or pain. However if you were to step on a single nail...


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Depends on how long you're riding for. Four or five 15-20 minute sessions are much better than two or three 45 minute to an hour sessions. She'll retain more and build muscle/stamina better.

Remember that at 4, depending on what breed she is (don't think I've seen you mention her breed), she's still got some growing to do.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hoofpic, listen to your horse. I worry some about Bandit (see my avatar). His owner treated him well enough that Bandit came here thinking humans are wonderful. But Bandit is 15.0 hands and about 800 lbs. He makes Trooper and Mia feel stocky in comparison. When I get on his back, I find myself wondering where my horse has gone - and that from someone who has only ridden a 1000 lb horse during lessons!

He did lots of miles with a big guy on his back, going fast. I don't know at what age. His legs look OK. And we'll probably do fine. I mostly walk and trot my horses, usually for an hour. Sometimes 2. For my use, he'll probably be fine. But I'll keep an eye on him for signs of soreness.

Cowboy is a 13.0 hand tall tank. His legs are as thick as Bandit's, and straighter. Outstanding hooves. His back is thicker than Bandit's - I can feel the additional width. Mia was 15.3 hands, and her saddle fits Cowboy fine! He has a short back, thick loins, and he'll make it very obvious if something hurts. He's the perfect build for a horse to carry weight.

I like the advice I saw in a dressage book - train frequent, train short. Let the horse tell you when he is ready for more. I went too far on Cowboy the other day. Tomorrow's ride on him will be shorter and flatter. As a life long jogger, I've learned the key to longevity is listening to my body. It is possible to listen to the horse, although some horses are more 'talkative' than others.

Take it slow, listen to your horse, and lay a solid foundation. You'll both do fine.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> Depends on how long you're riding for. Four or five 15-20 minute sessions are much better than two or three 45 minute to an hour sessions. She'll retain more and build muscle/stamina better.
> 
> Remember that at 4, depending on what breed she is (don't think I've seen you mention her breed), she's still got some growing to do.


Oh, shes a paint 

Oh I always thought longer sessions builds muscle more. Didnt know that its the other way around.



DraftyAiresMum said:


> That's great that you found a used saddle place, Hoofpic.
> 
> Personally, I'd have your trainer help you fitting the saddle, assuming she knows what she's doing.
> 
> ...


Im leaning towards the trainer fitting her as well. I will at least ask if she is capable doing this. I would think just about any good trainer should be knowledgable enough in fitting a saddle to any size horse without any discomfort or tension.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

bsms said:


> Hoofpic, listen to your horse. I worry some about Bandit (see my avatar). His owner treated him well enough that Bandit came here thinking humans are wonderful. But Bandit is 15.0 hands and about 800 lbs. He makes Trooper and Mia feel stocky in comparison. When I get on his back, I find myself wondering where my horse has gone - and that from someone who has only ridden a 1000 lb horse during lessons!
> 
> He did lots of miles with a big guy on his back, going fast. I don't know at what age. His legs look OK. And we'll probably do fine. I mostly walk and trot my horses, usually for an hour. Sometimes 2. For my use, he'll probably be fine. But I'll keep an eye on him for signs of soreness.
> 
> ...


Yes I plan on having her ridden no more than 2 times a week to start and no more than 15mins to start. She hasnt been ridden for 3 months now so will have to ease her back in.

Very glad my new trainer is light, shes maybe 115-125lbs, if that. 

Nothing against my previous trainers but there was no way I would let any of them ride her as they are all too heavy. And if a trainer is too heavy for my horse, and i want them to train my horse by riding her, then using them is pointless.

Her previous owner was Id say 150lbs at most. But she also broke her at 3 and rode her since she was 3, so 150lbs on a 800lbs horse (the weight Im guessing she was at the time going by pics) is borderline max on what should be on her back. Thankfully, she was only ridden lightly and only once a week for the most part.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Depending on how she's built, she'd probably be fine with 1) more weight and 2) more sessions.

My best friend is 5'8" and probably about 180lbs. She has a 3yo Arab/paint filly. She rides her for half an hour to 45 minutes three or four times a week. The filly never comes up sore and has actually filled out more since she started riding her relatively regularly. Toui is about 14.2hh and a solid 900lbs. My best friend also uses her heavy (40lbs) roping saddle when she rides.


----------



## BreezylBeezyl (Mar 25, 2014)

Oh, if you don't feel like forking out tons of money for a saddle and aren't too picky about what you use, look for a used cutback saddle. It's practically like riding bareback in the sense that there us nothing holding you on these saddles, but with the added support for the horse's back.

Cutbacks have horrible resale value (because Saddle Seat is a less common discipline), so you can probably pick a nice one up for pretty cheap! $200-$400 is the price around here for used but new cutbacks.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

bsms said:


> "You are, by your own admission from early post about this, speaking from ignorance of
> first hand knowledge / experience."
> Actually, I'm saying what I see on my horses, and adding the experiences of others.
> I've never ridden a horse at 20% or below. Ever.


The experiences of you and others who are not long distance riders (don't read old reports, look at what's varifiable). Not very reliable sources for making assumptions about long distance riding.
A great many riders never do 20% or less :lol:, but they also don't ride over 25 hours a week and average around 100 miles for weekes or months on end like someone doing a long distance ride. They don't even average the typical training for long distance riding.



bsms said:


> "Load up your 800 lbs horse with 350 lbs and ride 500 miles in 5 weeks"
> Nope. But Col Thompins loaded 220-250 on HIS 800 lb horse, and rode him for a month in some of the hardest terrain imaginable. I see no reason why we should pretend he didn't do it. Sea level to 9,000 feet, snow to 100+ deserts, rocks - check out the mountains of northern Mexico and southern Arizona sometime.
> 
> "We have nothing to go on there but the word of one officer. We don't have any reliable medical report on the condition of the horse."
> ...


So you put your faith in some officers report, for which no reliable medical report on the horses exist, over an actual case study done by equine professionals? That officer's report means nothing with regards the actual condition of his horse. 
:lol: That's a bit like some pilot saying there's nothing wrong with a planes design, but the aeronautical engineers and mechanics are pointing out flaws in the design. I sure hope you won't believe the pilot and rush out to fly the flawed plane.
If you want a good modern day perspective on self made reports (but with a medical side to it) look at Valeri Popov (spelling???) and his group. If you read he said about their ride from the Urals to Paris a few years back, his stallion was wonderful. His horse was incredible and everyone was amazed by it. (I guess the other horses weren't as amazing as his....sounds like an officer you mentioned). Of course what he had to say is all YOU will want to read. Do not look at what was said about the horses condition when examined while passing Moscow. Make sure you ignore the German medical 
report and how they tried to stop the horses from continuing while in Germany, because if their condition. Both examinations listed his stallion as being in the best condition compared to the others, but still not in condition to be doing that ride. 
 Have to wonder how well your Cav officer's stallion would have measured up to a modern medical exam vs just what riders thought. As for that weight he was carrying. Any distance rider will be quick to point out that that the weight dropped daily since he was out of supply. Every day that they were in an engagement (odds are they were not mounted, especially in that terrain so the horses get a little break on combat days) the weight would have likely dropped by at least 10 lbs or more each day of combat (ammo and food). So if they did a lot of fighting those were days the horse didn't do as much and dropped more of the weight it carried. Bassed on the impression you give of that massive military campaign , no resupply, and all the fighting they did, he was probably at 20% long before the month was up.



bsms said:


> "There was nothing in that study that said the horses were out of shape so what do you base that statement on..."
> They were not ridden for FOUR MONTHS. Then they were ridden for 45 minutes, then given 2 weeks without riding before being ridden for another 45 minutes. What kind of shape do YOU think they were in?


This is how you insure accurate, across the board readings :lol:. You need all the horses to be starting at the same place for your test and results to be valid.  Did you never do studies in college with control groups? All things have to be equal in order for any findings to be meaningful or valid. If you grab a bunch of endurance racers there was no control of how much or what kind of training and conditioning each horse had. They have to be at the same point physically. How do you make those racers all equal to put them all at the same starting point for the test? You can't. That's why they do it this way. That wasn't the problem. What would have been nice if they could have tested even longer time periods at work to get good readings on weight empact over longer periods of excess weight. Then compared more extensive results for impacts from variations like strenght of cannon bones and loins. But we'll just have to be content with what the impacts were over shorter time periods and without the extra information. The test also mentioned other things like loin size, but acknowledge that more study was needed. These were also things that were already known to the long distance riding community. The study just gave the medical information on what was happening at the chemical level for the horse.



bsms said:


> "People who have ridden long distances pretty much all agree that weight is the killer
> (I've yet to hear one that says differently). It's the pounds, not the miles, that will
> break the horse down."
> If you put enough weight, yes. Put 10,000 lbs on a horse, and you will kill it every
> time! But that isn't what is being asked.


That is a incredibly stupid statement and shows that you obviously know next to nothing about weight in connection with long distance riding. I've never known anyone who would have thought that experienced long distance riders would be referring to any so rediculous with regards to weight. Now I know someone who does. :icon_rolleyes:



bsms said:


> Is the limit based on a percentage of body weight? If so, is that limit 15%? 17% 20%? 25%? 30%? Is the back the limiting factor, or the legs?
> The best answer is it depends on the horse, the rider, and what they are doing. But there is no scientific basis for 20%. The US Cavalry used 25% as their normal expectation - with thousands of horses and riders covering millions of miles.


Yes, it's based on the horse's body weight. It can impact both back and front legs, but generally the back is impacted first. Hopefully it doesn't get to the legs. 20% is the generally accepted rule, because it allows the most with the least impact.
The study was scientific (whether you liked it or not) and it did confirm what experience had already taught us. So there is a scientific basis for 20%. Certainly more than you've provided (which is none ).
And in the later half of the 1800's 1,000's of doctors wiped their bloody instraments on their bloody aprons to clean them off before the next operation. That didn't make it smart or right. Just meant they were ignorant of what the actual effect was and what was a better way of doing it.
And the US Cavalry wrecked thousands of horses while covering those millions of miles, but we'll come back to that. 



bsms said:


> "We don't say that BECAUSE of the test. We knew it BEFORE the test. We say it from experience."
> Really? If you ride at 25%, you normally break your horse down? I'm sorry to hear that.
> The cavalry didn't. Millions of riders don't. I don't. I must have missed the part in the OP's question where she asked about riding 50 miles a day for a month on end.
> No, I don't ride my horses 50 miles a day. MY back doesn't allow it. My friend in Utah and his sons ride 20-50 miles a day, though. He's bigger than me, and his sons are bigger than him. Trooper is the son of their favorite ranch stallion, and Trooper is about 850 lbs - like their favorite stallion. 850 lb horse, with 200+ lb guy and a roping saddle and gear, riding 20-50 miles a day in rough country. Do the math.


Will come back to what my horses can do.
Actually, the cav did break down a lot of their horses. An awful lot of horses. Ever look at the number of remounts that were needed by the US Cav as a result of mounts being unfit for duty (i.e. some needed time and care to recover while many were just broken down beyond recovery, but often both cases resulted in being released from service...not counting the ones that just died. Either way the trooper needed to have a replacement). That doesn't seem to get talked about much and was sort of a "dirty little secret" that wasn't really a secret, but they didn't like to bring attention to that. There was good money to be made in supplying remounts to the US Army. Most were not killed in battle. They were wore down. The US Army spit out more worn out, broken down horses than the flat track TB racing industry does. In Charleston, SC there's a long road that runs up to what use to be the Army Depot. It's called Remount Rd, because they would drive herds of remounts up it to the depot to be sorted and transported out to army camps by rail or ship (it was set up for both). The military was always selling off horses they deemed no longer fit for the military if they thought they could get something for them. Many were destroyed or sent to slaughter (slaughter being preferred because it paid). 
My father learned to ride on one of those cast off military horses as a boy. Once rested up for months and recovered he turned out to be a good horse, but my grandfather was pretty good at picking out good horse flesh (and at pointing out problems with the Cav).
As for you heavy friends overloading their horses....Look at your horse that was injured by an overweight rider and do the math yourself. Hopefully their horses are getting recovery time in between.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

bsms said:


> Bandit braced his back, but his previous owner rode him 30+ miles regularly - and his previous owner is probably 220 in his socks. That was probably too much for Bandit.
> Bandit is an uncommonly slender horse. Let the horse tell you his limit! But he's learning to use his back and relax with me - at 25%. But of course, the experience of the cavalry, ranchers, endurance riders, etc - they don't count, and neither do I.


It can't be true....:shock: Your horse wasn't able to handle, let's say bit over 250 lbs and not even on a long distance ride? Can't be true since your experience and observation has shown you that some extra weight is not a problem (see Colorado friends above). Certainly less than the 10,000 lbs you idiotically stated. So the lesson there means what...that what long distance riders (not just me) say about weight still isn't true??? (but yet your horse suffered from carrying the extra weight and not for hundreds of contiguous miles)?? So perhaps it does matter that we have a lot more experience with horses under load for weeks on end covering hundreds and even thousands of miles (while I haven't done any 1,000+ mile rides yet, plenty of long distance riders have). Of course our first hand experience with riding those distances with different weights doesn't mean anything since all the shorter distance, shorter riding time riders experience is OBVIOUSLY going to be more accurate than the people who actually do it. Just like someone studying flying knows more about how to fly combat jets, their capabiities and limitations, than people who actually fly them? 
Since I've flown on a lot commercial jets in my life what I say about how to fly those planes will certainly be more reliable information than someone who has actually piloted those planes :lol:. That is essentually what you're saying. That those who don't do it, know more than those who do. We do it so what we know doesn't count. Only what those who don't do it believe (having never done it) matters.



bsms said:


> I've started riding Cowboy at 30%. I'll let you know if there are any problems. So far...he gets tired after an hour. But he's only been ridden 3 times in the last 3 months, so he is a couch potato horse. Now. He won't be 6 months from now. And I'll never ride him 30 miles because MY back cannot handle it. But that does NOT mean my experience will be meaningless. It is pretty typical of recreational riders - riding a
> few hours a day, several days a week.


For the amount of riding you do you could probably survive over 30% if you allow for recovery. There are endurance racer that do. If a horse has sufficient recovery time there is less impact over all (another thing that study showed). The horse recovers to normal and is ready to go. 

The experience won't be meaningless for the recreational rider, but we already know that it has less overall impact for them, because of the recovery time the get. It will be rather meaningless for long distance riding. 
After a 10 day warm of of extra miles my mares are back to carrying about 30% for 20 miles with no visably desernable effect (even after not doing more than about 5 miles one day a week for 2 months...I ride them less in the Summer here), but I'm conditioning them and they each get breaks. Not the same as using one for a long distance ride. Actually, if you're riding a few hours (I'll equate that to around 10+ miles...a few being 3? and at a 3-3.5 MPH walking speed that's 9 miles at least) every day for 4 days a week, while you're still in the 90% of riders, you're actually riding more than most recreational riders. Most poeple don't even ride that many miles in a week.



bsms said:


> But yeah, folks CAN and HAVE ridden much harder terrain than you, and done the miles, and had their horses hold up fine - at 30%. LOTS of them have done it.
> Your experience does not negate theirs. Sorry to hear your horses can only handle 20%.


:lol: My horses can and do easily handle over 30% for the riding done for training. Apparently they handle it better than your's do, but that's understandable since it's just a recreation for you, but I have to build up their cannon bones and prepare them. 
How do you think cannon bones are remodaled? Excess weight at walking speed over many miles. The steady stress on the bones increases their size and density. My older mare's cannon bones are over 9.5". But of course in your VAST experience and knowledge of long distance riding you already know that, like weight, cannon bone and loin size count for nothing since the people you see riding around don't bother with it. Therefore it can't make any difference. 
You'll have to explain what their expertise and experience at long distance riding is. If it's none then my experience certainly does negate theirs. A bit like me saying your flying knowledge does not negate a Fokker Dr1 pilot's flying knowledge when it comes to flying jets. If he's never flown a jet, but you have then your knowledge would certainly negate his (or perhaps you don't think so?). A person who rides hunt seat's knowledge about that discipline with certainly negate the hunt seat knowledge of a person who's never ridden anything but western pleasure and only knows that hunt seat does exist. Riding one wat doesn't make you an authority on riding you've never done. Riding a horse 30-50 miles around home does not make you knowledgeable about long distance riding.

:rofl: You have no idea what terrain I've ridden. I've been in your neck of the woods. I've ridden the mountains around area covered from Ft Huachuca. Tombstone and Bisbee, etc... (Southern AZ montains..that was the area you said I should check out, because of the old army officer's report....I have checked it out and ridden in it back in the early 80's). So I guess you're talking about some other region that has the "much harder terrain" than I've ridden. I've ridden in sevaral parts of the US. Actually I found southern AZ to be not very bad as far as terrain to ride on. Riding in the mountains was the most enjoyable (riding wise). Water for the horse always being the main concern out there and forage being the second. When you're 20 miles from water and 2 feet from Hell it's good to have friends who bring some out if needed. I remember when one block off Fry Blvd was dirt roads and main street was the only paved road in Tombstone. However you've missed the boat since it has nothing to do with how rough the terrain is (condition of feet matter there) and yes there are many long distance riders who've done the miles, but they don't disbute the value of carrying lower %. It's only those of you who don't do it that are suddenly the experts at it.
I'm well aware that there are horses that CAN be ridden 500 miles in 5 weeks with 30% weight (mine could do it), but just because the horse will endure and perservere does not mean it's not being adversely effected by it. It's because a horse is an amazingly stoic animal that can work itself to death for you. Never confuse what a horse CAN be forced to do with what a horse SHOULD be forced to do. Never think that what you can see is all that's going on with a horse. Often the signs of a problem are missed until enough damage is done beyond what the horse will stoically endure. Many people throughout history have wrecked horses, even ridden them to death, riding long distance. I'm not talking just in the 1800's, but in my lifetime (and your's for that matter). And for what. Because they didn't care enough to take proper care of the animal. Weight didn't matter because YOU know people who run their horse 50 miles with over 30% on their back....but for how long can they do it without a break before they horse shows signs of a problem or breaks down? (look at your own horse that was injured). Don't make the mistake in thinking that concientious long distant riders limit the weight carried because the horse can't carry it. Odds are their horse can successfully carry more than most...including your's. They carry less because they care about the horse first and want it to hold up and stay sound no matter how far they end up riding. Be it 500, 5,000, 10,000 miles or more. Or how long situations force them to do between breaks.
My mares are more than capable of carrying over 30% with ease for 20 miles (having both done so), but it's only to keep building them up (loins and cannon bones) and they each only do it about once a week or sometimes 3 times in 2 weeks with break days. If there was some benefit to it I could easily move that up to 30 miles, but it wouldn't give 
any extra benefit for them to carry over 30% for 30 miles. Preparing for long distance riding isn't just about weight. Along with weight, cannon bone size/strength, stong/wide loins, ideally a short back and a great fitting saddle are all pretty equally important. 
Mine are 1200 lbs, good cannon bones (and getting better), 
wide loins and short back with stone crusher feet (the area around Ft Huachuca would pose no problem...except for water and forage). They are well built for doing long distances.
You're free to do and believe whatever you like. You not believing it, just because you know some people and horses who ride over these weight %, doesn't make it less true. 
Just because they rode 30 or 50 miles in day doesn't make it an accurate comparison. Endurance racer do more than that. And most of them (not all of them are conscientious, but most are) give their mounts recovery time afterwards. Before resuming the regiment of maintaining their conditioning. That's because they understand the stresses they put the horse through even though the horse might not show it. Long distance riders don't have that luxury since we often ride over 70% of the week on our trips...if we're lucky enough to fine a place to rest couple days that week. We only have a couple days to rest up before continuing. 

I know a huge number of people who exceed 25% and even 30% and their horses hold up quite well, but they are not long distance riders. As I pointed out in my first post. Most of you will never place the demands on a horse that make it matter so it's not a big concern. Those who do make those demands represent less than 1% of the riders. We've learned. By trial and error, and from others who'd already learned. You not liking the truth doesn't change it. 
Like a young girl I know who barrel races with 4 H on a saddle that has only about 1/2" clearance between her horse's withers and pommel. Just because she's succeeding at it doesn't mean that saddle fits. Her not liking what I told her about her saddle fit doesn't change the fact that it doesn't fit.

Ask yourself this. If the 20% rule for riding long distances is wrong, why has it become the standard for success with so many long distance riders? Do you honestly think that if we could carry more without any risk of impacting on our mounts that we wouldn't? Just because my girls can, and have, carried well over 300 lbs with what was visable ease for 20 mile rides (building up those cannon bones) doesn't mean it's smart to do it for 1,000 miles. What rider wouldn't enjoy being able to haul 3 gallons of water along each day, bigger tent, (my caste iron skillet ), etc, etc? You honestly think these limits were just arbitrarily thought up? They existed, long before that study, for a reason. Experience and lessons learned. Some of them undoubtedly the hard way. One would have THOUGHT that as a former pilot you would have known the value of learning from previous experience and lessons learned by those who came before you who had already been there and done that. Or did they just put you in the plane and say "take off and learn as you go"? (I know better. There were a lot of lessons learned taught to you first) Your examples of riders you know of that you're basing your opinions on is a bit like saying that what I know about the abilities of YEH 60 and it's pilot, and crew, has a valid bearing in determining what F15 and it's pilot can do. They are after all, both aircraft and flying is flying just like riding is riding....right? Clearly neither is true. Even though the biochemical effects for horses are the same for work at a given weight, and while conditioning will effect the horses abilities to deal with it, having time to recover afterwards makes a big difference. A difference that the long distance rider doesn't generally have on any given day. That's why we use the 20% rule. We can go for 5,6, even more than 10 days if we must without a couple days break and without any appreciable inpact on our horse (same might not be said for some riders though since they need a break too). Weight impact over all is different for the long distance rider (less recovery time and a lot more riding time). The 20% rule allows for the least impact so we can go longer between breaks if we can't find a suitable location. Our mounts are still ok. That is why we keep the impact on the horse to as little as we can. We could ride with more, but we increase the risk of problems. You and your friends aren't hundreds of miles out so you don't have to consider the impact of your horse having problems. If he's to tied he can spend a couple days in the pasture. We have to consider everything. Even the possibility of having to go more than a week or two beefore finding a place rest up for a few days.

Nothing we say is going to change the other. You'll believe what you want based on what you see. I'll know what I know base on my and other's experience and lessons learned. 
Fortunately it doesn't matter since, like over 99% of riders, you're never going to ride long distances. So you can safely believe whatever with almost no chance of it ever impacting you and that will be good for you. What you believe will, fortunately, never impact me . I'll keep the weight down for long distance rides so that I can do my rides without ever worrying about the weight impacting my horse's condition and that's a good me (and the other long distance riders).


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

bsms said:


> Bandit braced his back, but his previous owner rode him 30+ miles regularly - and his previous owner is probably 220 in his socks. That was probably too much for Bandit.
> Bandit is an uncommonly slender horse. Let the horse tell you his limit! But he's learning to use his back and relax with me - at 25%. But of course, the experience of the cavalry, ranchers, endurance riders, etc - they don't count, and neither do I.


It can't be true....:shock: Your horse wasn't able to handle, let's say bit over 250 lbs and not even on a long distance ride? Can't be true since your experience and observation has shown you that some extra weight is not a problem (see Colorado friends above). Certainly less than the 10,000 lbs you idiotically stated. So the lesson there means what...that what long distance riders (not just me) say about weight still isn't true??? (but yet your horse suffered from carrying the extra weight and not for hundreds of contiguous miles)?? So perhaps it does matter that we have a lot more experience with horses under load for weeks on end covering hundreds and even thousands of miles (while I haven't done any 1,000+ mile rides yet, plenty of long distance riders have). Of course our first hand experience with riding those distances with different weights doesn't mean anything since all the shorter distance, shorter riding time riders experience is OBVIOUSLY going to be more accurate than the people who actually do it. Just like someone studying flying knows more about how to fly combat jets, their capabiities and limitations, than people who actually fly them? 
Since I've flown on a lot commercial jets in my life what I say about how to fly those planes will certainly be more reliable information than someone who has actually piloted those planes :lol:. That is essentually what you're saying. That those who don't do it, know more than those who do. We do it so what we know doesn't count. Only what those who don't do it believe (having never done it) matters.



bsms said:


> I've started riding Cowboy at 30%. I'll let you know if there are any problems. So far...he gets tired after an hour. But he's only been ridden 3 times in the last 3 months, so he is a couch potato horse. Now. He won't be 6 months from now. And I'll never ride him 30 miles because MY back cannot handle it. But that does NOT mean my experience will be meaningless. It is pretty typical of recreational riders - riding a
> few hours a day, several days a week.


For the amount of riding you do you could probably survive over 30% if you allow for recovery. There are endurance racer that do. If a horse has sufficient recovery time there is less impact over all (another thing that study showed). The horse recovers to normal and is ready to go. 

The experience won't be meaningless for the recreational rider, but we already know that it has less overall impact for them, because of the recovery time the get. It will be rather meaningless for long distance riding. 
After a 10 day warm of of extra miles my mares are back to carrying about 30% for 20 miles with no visably desernable effect (even after not doing more than about 5 miles one day a week for 2 months...I ride them less in the Summer here), but I'm conditioning them and they each get breaks. Not the same as using one for a long distance ride. Actually, if you're riding a few hours (I'll equate that to around 10+ miles...a few being 3? and at a 3-3.5 MPH walking speed that's 9 miles at least) every day for 4 days a week, while you're still in the 90% of riders, you're actually riding more than most recreational riders. Most poeple don't even ride that many miles in a week.



bsms said:


> But yeah, folks CAN and HAVE ridden much harder terrain than you, and done the miles, and had their horses hold up fine - at 30%. LOTS of them have done it.
> Your experience does not negate theirs. Sorry to hear your horses can only handle 20%.


:lol: My horses can and do easily handle over 30% for the riding done for training. Apparently they handle it better than your's do, but that's understandable since it's just a recreation for you, but I have to build up their cannon bones and prepare them. 
How do you think cannon bones are remodaled? Excess weight at walking speed over many miles. The steady stress on the bones increases their size and density. My older mare's cannon bones are over 9.5". But of course in your VAST experience and knowledge of long distance riding you already know that, like weight, cannon bone and loin size count for nothing since the people you see riding around don't bother with it. Therefore it can't make any difference. 
You'll have to explain what their expertise and experience at long distance riding is. If it's none then my experience certainly does negate theirs. A bit like me saying your flying knowledge does not negate a Fokker Dr1 pilot's flying knowledge when it comes to flying jets. If he's never flown a jet, but you have then your knowledge would certainly negate his (or perhaps you don't think so?). A person who rides hunt seat's knowledge about that discipline with certainly negate the hunt seat knowledge of a person who's never ridden anything but western pleasure and only knows that hunt seat does exist. Riding one wat doesn't make you an authority on riding you've never done. Riding a horse 30-50 miles around home does not make you knowledgeable about long distance riding.

:rofl: You have no idea what terrain I've ridden. I've been in your neck of the woods. I've ridden the mountains around area covered from Ft Huachuca. Tombstone and Bisbee, etc... (Southern AZ montains..that was the area you said I should check out, because of the old army officer's report....I have checked it out and ridden in it back in the early 80's). So I guess you're talking about some other region that has the "much harder terrain" than I've ridden. I've ridden in sevaral parts of the US. Actually I found southern AZ to be not very bad as far as terrain to ride on. Riding in the mountains was the most enjoyable (riding wise). Water for the horse always being the main concern out there and forage being the second. When you're 20 miles from water and 2 feet from Hell it's good to have friends who bring some out if needed. I remember when one block off Fry Blvd was dirt roads and main street was the only paved road in Tombstone. However you've missed the boat since it has nothing to do with how rough the terrain is (condition of feet matter there) and yes there are many long distance riders who've done the miles, but they don't disbute the value of carrying lower %. It's only those of you who don't do it that are suddenly the experts at it.
I'm well aware that there are horses that CAN be ridden 500 miles in 5 weeks with 30% weight (mine could do it), but just because the horse will endure and perservere does not mean it's not being adversely effected by it. It's because a horse is an amazingly stoic animal that can work itself to death for you. Never confuse what a horse CAN be forced to do with what a horse SHOULD be forced to do. Never think that what you can see is all that's going on with a horse. Often the signs of a problem are missed until enough damage is done beyond what the horse will stoically endure. Many people throughout history have wrecked horses, even ridden them to death, riding long distance. I'm not talking just in the 1800's, but in my lifetime (and your's for that matter). And for what. Because they didn't care enough to take proper care of the animal. Weight didn't matter because YOU know people who run their horse 50 miles with over 30% on their back....but for how long can they do it without a break before they horse shows signs of a problem or breaks down? (look at your own horse that was injured). Don't make the mistake in thinking that concientious long distant riders limit the weight carried because the horse can't carry it. Odds are their horse can successfully carry more than most.... including your's. They carry less because they care about the horse first and want it to hold up and stay sound no matter how far they end up riding. Be it 500, 5,000, 10,000 miles or more. 
Or how long situations force them to do between breaks.
My mares are more than capable of carrying over 30% with ease for 20 miles (having both done so), but it's only to keep building them up (loins and cannon bones) and they each only do it about once a week or sometimes 3 times in 2 weeks with break days. If there was some benefit to it I could easily move that up to 30 miles, but it wouldn't give 
any extra benefit for them to carry over 30% for 30 miles. Preparing for long distance riding isn't just about weight. Along with weight, cannon bone size/strength, stong/wide loins, ideally a short back and a great fitting saddle are all pretty equally important. 
Mine are 1200 lbs, good cannon bones (and getting better), 
wide loins and short back with stone crusher feet (the area around Ft Huachuca would pose no problem...except for water and forage). They are well built for doing long distances.
You're free to do and believe whatever you like. You not believing it, just because you know some people and horses who ride over these weight %, doesn't make it less true. 
Just because they rode 30 or 50 miles in day doesn't make it an accurate comparison. Endurance racer do more than that. And most of them (not all of them are conscientious, but most are) give their mounts recovery time afterwards. Before resuming the regiment of maintaining their conditioning. That's because they understand the stresses they put the horse through even though the horse might not show it. Long distance riders don't have that luxury since we often ride over 70% of the week on our trips...if we're lucky enough to fine a place to rest couple days that week. We only have a couple days to rest up before continuing. 

I know a huge number of people who exceed 25% and even 30% and their horses hold up quite well, but they are not long distance riders. As I pointed out in my first post. Most of you will never place the demands on a horse that make it matter so it's not a big concern. Those who do make those demands represent less than 1% of the riders. We've learned. By trial and error, and from others who'd already learned. You not liking the truth doesn't change it. 
Like a young girl I know who barrel races with 4 H on a saddle that has only about 1/2" clearance between her horse's withers and pommel. Just because she's succeeding at it doesn't mean that saddle fits. Her not liking what I told her about her saddle fit doesn't change the fact that it doesn't fit.

Ask yourself this. If the 20% rule for riding long distances is wrong, why has it become the standard for success with so many long distance riders? Do you honestly think that if we could carry more without any risk of impacting on our mounts that we wouldn't? Just because my girls can, and have, carried well over 300 lbs with what was visable ease for 20 mile rides (building up those cannon bones) doesn't mean it's smart to do it for 1,000 miles. What rider wouldn't enjoy being able to haul 3 gallons of water along each day, bigger tent, (my caste iron skillet ), etc, etc? You honestly think these limits were just arbitrarily thought up? They existed, long before that study, for a reason. Experience and lessons learned. Some of them undoubtedly the hard way. One would have THOUGHT that as a former pilot you would have known the value of learning from previous experience and lessons learned by those who came before you who had already been there and done that. Or did they just put you in the plane and say "take off and learn as you go"? (I know better. There were a lot of lessons learned taught to you first) Your examples of riders you know of that you're basing your opinions on is a bit like saying that what I know about the abilities of YEH 60 and it's pilot, and crew, has a valid bearing in determining what F15 and it's pilot can do. They are after all, both aircraft and flying is flying just like riding is riding....right? Clearly neither is true. Even though the biochemical effects for horses are the same for work at a given weight, and while conditioning will effect the horses abilities to deal with it, having time to recover afterwards makes a big difference. A difference that the long distance rider doesn't generally have on any given day. That's why we use the 20% rule. We can go for 5,6, even more than 10 days if we must without a couple days break and without any appreciable inpact on our horse (same might not be said for some riders though since they need a break too). Weight impact over all is different for the long distance rider (less recovery time and a lot more riding time). The 20% rule allows for the least impact so we can go longer between breaks if we can't find a suitable location. Our mounts are still ok. That is why we keep the impact on the horse to as little as we can. We could ride with more, but we increase the risk of problems. You and your friends aren't hundreds of miles out so you don't have to consider the impact of your horse having problems. If he's to tied he can spend a couple days in the pasture. We have to consider everything. Even the possibility of having to go more than a week or two beefore finding a place rest up for a few days.

Nothing we say is going to change the other. You'll believe what you want based on what you see. I'll know what I know base on my and other's experience and lessons learned. 
Fortunately it doesn't matter since, like over 99% of riders, you're never going to ride long distances. So you can safely believe whatever with almost no chance of it ever impacting you and that will be good for you. What you believe will, fortunately, never impact me . I'll keep the weight down for long distance rides so that I can do my rides without ever worrying about the weight impacting my horse's condition and that's a good me (and the other long distance riders).


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Bottom lines: 

1 - The OP never asked about long distance or endurance riding.

2 - I ride at 25-30% all the time and have for 7 years, so I do have experience.

3 - I don't ignore history and see no reason why others should.

4 - The Tevis Cup study supports my views - and disagrees with yours.

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

5 - Ranchers ride above 20% all the time, covering rough terrain and very long distances, without hurting their horses.

"_Fortunately it doesn't matter since, like over 99% of riders, you're never going to ride long distances_."

What HAS been done successfully - by definition - CAN be done successfully. Horse camping is not the end all of riding...but the Army has done what you say cannot be done. So do ranchers. Food for thought. I don't have a dog in the fight, because my lower back will never handle a 50 mile ride."In 1919, W.R. Brown, then President of the Arabian Horse Registry, organized the first Cavalry Endurance Ride. The U.S. Remount Service had just been established by the government and there were only 362 registered Arabian horses in the country. It was a prime time to convince the government to breed Arabians. With so few Arabian horses, it was no easy task to find enough to adequately represent the breed in the endurance ride. However, the Arabs made a superior showing taking most of the prizes including first. Mr. Brown won first place on his purebred Arabian mare RAMLA #347. RAMLA carried 200 pounds on the ride 

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.
In spite of the Army's efforts, the first prize in the 1921 Cavalry Endurance Ride went to W.R. Brown's purebred Arabian gelding *CRABBET #309. Mr. Brown won the trophy once again in 1923 with his Anglo-Arab gelding GOUYA."

Welcome to Arabian Horses.org - Education
​What I told the OP is correct: There is no reason to worry about some 15% limit, or 20% - certainly not to the point of jettisoning the saddle to save weight! The real answer is "It depends". Depends on how the horse is built, how the saddle fits, how you use the horse, goals, etc.


----------



## Foxtail Ranch (Mar 10, 2012)

I really don't want to get into a conversation with someone who will call me stupid for this. I will just share my experience and thoughts with the group and hope for the best. Smilie and Lbs, I know we will disagree.

I have been riding for the past 5 years on my horses using a bareback pad. I ride 8-10 miles 2-3 times a week on very steep, twisty, rocky, muddy mountain trails, through creeks, under bridges, over logs, up hills at a gallop. I ride in a bosal and barefoot over gravel roads and up hills that seem made only for a goat.

My horse is in great physical condition. She has no back soreness, and is the most sound of horses. When we have the chiro out, she is the one who never needs any treatment. 

I rode this way when I was a kid, ages 5-17. I rode bareback even more miles for more years and again, my horse was sound and fit. My parents did not have enough money to get me a saddle until I was 16, and it was a saddle that did not fit because they knew nothing about such things. 

I do use a saddle occasionally, for pack trips, and just to keep my horse used to it. I have a great little buckaroo saddle that is the closest to comfortable I have found, but I still prefer no saddle.

I hear what you are saying about a saddle, and some of it makes sense. However, my life experiences have not given me any evidence that my horses would be better off with a saddle for my everyday riding. I don't think the OP must buy and use a saddle for the riding described. 

But that is just my opinion based on my limited experience of riding for 20 years or so.


Here is a picture of ponying bareback in the snow










And recently


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

bsms said:


> Bottom lines:
> 
> 1 - The OP never asked about long distance or endurance riding.
> 
> ...


1. You started with endurance. I mentioned long distance only in passing at the end of my post.
I what the OP asked about in my post and noted that the last bit only applied to the less than 1% of riders who do long distance riding. (what I told the op was correct too if you bothered to READ WHAT I WROTE...nothing about jettisoning a saddle to save weight...READ and you see that I encourage a saddle). Of course I could be like you about the weight study and argue about how so many people ride bareback it must be fine for the horse. Your logic would work great for that. Plenty of examples for it too. We can ignore the more advance science and just use selective empirical evidence to support it. You just get obsessed because you don't like a study I listed which has no bearing on what the OP, YOU or apparently anyone you know does, but does have some bearing for what a very small number of us do. You would have been fine if I had not mentioned something that I clearly stated would not apply to them UNLESS they wanted to take up long distance riding (which for most people is about as likely as them finding hen's teeth).
Endurance racing, riding around a few miles a few days a week, etc. are not the same as loading your horse up everything you're going to have to live with for the next however many weeks and months it will take you to get where your going and then going (while having to arrange places to resupply...like things shipped to a post office...and then managing it and you to be there before you run out). It's not the same as what the vast majority of people do when they camp with horses. Long distance riding is not a "horse camping trip". It's trip you take on your horse and you have to camp because it takes so long to get where you're going (and because hotels don't have pastures where you can turn your horse out for the night....now that would be wonderful...a bed, shower, pizza delivery...oh dare to dream).

2. You have experience at riding a few miles a day. By you're own admission less then 40 a week for the most part (about my last two days ride). That hardly qualifies you as having any experience in long distance riding or it's effects. To even presume that 7 years of riding a few miles a weeks (even 40 miles a week, every week, for 7 years) gives you knowledge to speak intelligently about long distance riding is absurd. All it gives you is experience at riding (in whatever style of riding you do) The 39 miles I just finished wouldn't qualify either, even it I did it for 20 years. It's just training and conditioning and parts of it are relatively early stages at that. The only way you'll ever have "experience" in long distance riding is to do it. To think otherwise is just deluding yourself. I think I'll be delusional and talk about how flying in commercial airliners for 42 years gives me experience to know about flying fighter jets.

3. You only don't ignore simple empirical evidence that appears to support what you want believe. You ignore everything that doesn't (or claim it's wrong), including more advanced scientific evidence. Advanced scientific evidence is far more dependable than empirical evidence (yes, I know that science also uses empirical evidence along with more advance science, but for ease I'll just say empirical vs science to differentiate between just empirical forms of evidence vs more advance science). Are we to gather that you would rather go back to surgeons doing non sterile operations. After all, not everyone got sick and died from them. Most survived so obviously the more advanced science was wrong and being sterile doesn't really matter. Otherwise there would not have been all those millions of surgery survivors throughout history. Long distance riders used empirical evidence too. Before that study, trail and error result in the practice of riding light, because experience had resulted in knowledge that over time the stress levels will catch up with you. Might be 500 miles, 750 miles or whenever, depending on the weight and circumstances, but they eventually catch up with you (unless you finish before then, in which case there's recovery). Only difference is now we know what goes on inside the horse. The biochemical results that lead to the effects that eventually manifest themselves after enough time with different amounts of weight.

4. Tevis Cup: 
a: is an endurance race and NOT long distance riding. As I've already pointed out. Those horses run a hard race (one day in the case of Tevis Cup, but some are longer over more days) and then they get to rest up and recover. That is NOT long distance riding. It is endurance racing. Which is more demanding in the short term, but it doesn't last as long, go as far and gives more recovery time. 
b: Tevis Cup study ONLY supports that fact that some horses carrying up to 35% have completed the race. Meaning the condition of the horse did not exceed their medical safety limits based on respiration, temperature and heart rate (empirical evidence. No one did blood tests for biochemical effects). That DOES NOT mean that the horses carrying that amount were not stressed or that they could continue for another 100 miles the next day. It means that they were not medically at risk at any of the vet checks or at the end of that race. (you don't seem to grasp that endurance racing is not the same thing as long distance riding since you CONSTANTLY use that as your comparison....other than a someone rides a horse they have nothing else really in common. They place very different demands on the horse and rider). Endurance racing is a wonderful, demanding sport, but it is not long distance riding.

And let us look at their conclusion from the test:
"The results of this study confirm that rider weight, either independent of, or relative to the animal BW is not a critical factor in predicting performance during a 160-km endurance competition. BW was also not a factor in horses disqualified for metabolic failure, but did have an effect on lameness. CBC did not have a direct effect on performance, but the relatively narrow range of measurements obtained may be a contributing factor to lameness as BW increased. Condition score has a strong effect on completion rate. However, it should be noted that the Tevis Cup is a technically challenging event over unique terrain. Further investigation at endurance competitions held under differing conditions and terrain is merited."
From what I see they confirm what I've been saying.
So for 160KM race the weight was not a "critical" factor. Please not that they are not saying that it did not create stress on the horse or that it did not result in some negative impact. Only the it was not a critical factor in the horse failing to complete the race due to metabolic failure (there can be many effects that are not critical, but are still effects...which over long distances can become critical). Nor are they saying that weight above a certain level would not have an effect on a horse ridden 1,000 miles or more. ONLY that for this 100 mile race it did not create a condition that was critical enough to be medically threatening to the horse under those exact conditions (that sounds like what I already said). In fact it does not contradict the other study. The other study did not say the impact at 25% or even 30% was critical. It merely said it exist and how long recovery took. So, as I said on an earlier thread when we had this same discussion, the Tevis Cup study, if used for long distance riding, is worthless and means nothing. If long distance riding was a few days long race over a lengthy number of miles then it would probably have some value. But that's not what long distance riding is so nothing in the test applies. Also, as with the university study the Tevis Cup test concludes the same thing. That further investigation is merited. i.e. they still didn't get to cover it everything that needs to be covered.


5. While I didn't ride with over 20% when I worked cattle (mostly because we WORKED hard so being overweight was something we didn't need to worry about), I easily could have done the work at 25% or 30. It's highly unlikely that anyone has done any major long distance cattle drives since around 1890 or before, because they establish rail heads in various, more spread out locations to make it quicker to get the cattle to where they could be loaded on trains, cutting down on weight loss and getting them to market faster (and those open range cowboys, contrary to what Hollywood likes to portray...which are more ranch hands than range cowboys, where on average pretty small and still generally used 2 or more horses to rotate on). IF you can find people who still drive cattle over couple hundred miles it's something they don't likely do often (we didn't have to move them THAT often) and just because the horse manages it doesn't meant there's not some level of excess physical stress happening. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. (back to empirical vs advance scientific). I did 20 mile forced road marches with a full pack, but that doesn't mean there wasn't extra physical stress happening. Just means I could do it still be able to function for a time before I had to get some rest.

Yes, we all know about the Army's 300 mile endurance race. Again. It's an endurance race NOT long distance riding. They successfully covered a lot of ground in a short time and then they RESTED (I doubt they could have kept it up for over 1,000 miles). It was controlled. Just like endurance races are controlled today (it was also to prove what a breed could stand up to, but was only concerned with demonstrating that. Not what degree of physical stress the horse might have....it just had to finish and in acceptable shape "empirically" ). Today the riders usually have a support team to set things up, there's medical personnel on hand, staged areas for water, food and rest, staged camping areas, etc. etc. etc. No worries about daily having to find water, a place to camp, dealing with unknown conditions, situations and surprises. They know that at the end of the day(s) that they'll be done and able to take a LONG rest. All things the long distance rider doesn't necessarily have or absolutely doesn't have (depending on what it is). It's like comparing a marathon racer to someone who's going to jog across the US carrying everything on their back (Apples vs Oranges). Why do you think that even though endurance racers are a very small % of riders are still probably way over 1,000 to 1 more endurance racers than there are long distance riders.

I hope that all my various repetitions about endurance racing NOT being the same as long distance riding is starting to sink in. It's always your "go to" point and it's a non point, because it's like comparing the riding done at the Spanish Riding School with barrel racing. Different requirements. What is true for one is not true for the other (ever see a AQH to the "Airs"???? No, of course not.)

You're very hung up on the idea that just because a horse can do something in the short term or manage to cope with it for longer term, that it's ok and not having any adverse physical effect from it, but leaving it's condition at normal the whole time. Just like people who carry a load and do work suffer effects from it, so do horses. Just like if the load is heavy enough we need to recover so do horses. Just like the heavier the load the longer we'll and possibly sooner we'll need to recover, so will horses. I think you fail to grasp just how stoic a horse really is (or at least can be....some are more than other).
How do you determine if your horse needs worming? Does it have to loose a certain amount of weight first, or do you have to see worms coming out? Surely you don't have an FEC done, because that would mean using more advance science over the basic empirical evidence you base everything on.

Since you want to throw up history I'll be happy to give you some too since you love to use the US Cav to support how much the horse can take. 

Information from what was very probably the first REAL vet (college degree) to ever be with the US Army as a Vet (he appears to not have joined since the army considered farriers to be the vet and it only came with Sgt Majors pay. The Vet Corp didn't exist until 1916). He worked as a civilian, charging the officers for treating their horses, which paid more than he made in his private practice. He appeared to be with the Regiment for about a year before leaving in disgust, but he kept records.
In Oct the Regiment had 780 horse. Over the next 5 months (Oct -March) "twenty-one were stolen or lost, eighteen were destroyed after suffering accidents while performing orderly or picket duty, eleven were shot in combat (some by friendly fire), and nine died or were destroyed because of disease. Ninety-eight were unfit for service because of temporary lameness, fistulas, emaciation, and gravidity. In short, five months of garrison duty and training cost the regiment twenty percent of its horses. Of those declared unfit for service, thirty-one were taken along as pack animals and the remaining sixty-seven were abandoned."

His record of the campaign was even worse. Apparently keeping in supply was a problem.
"Many died from exhaustion and malnutrition. Then, when feed finally arrived, it killed and sickened more horses"
He noted: "Besides the weather, the mountainous terrain, and the inadequate logistics, wounds from kicks, saddle sores, and friendly fire also reduced the number of serviceable horses still further. These three classes of injuries incapacitated 142 horses. Thirty-two others were captured or killed by the enemy", "Diseases such as scabies, lice, and rheumatic lameness laid low more."
"The regiment's herd—620 on March 10—was reduced to 329 by June 10, and to 249 by the end of July "
His final note on the campaign was that after 5 month "none of the regiment's horses were fit for cavalry service and all were relegated to "permanent orderly duty."
Now, while I'll admit that veterinary science in the 1800's is sad in comparison to what it is today, I'll have to concede that this Vet still had a better knowledge than pretty much anyone serving in the Cavalry so I have to give more weight to his records over what some officer would put in a report or anyone else with an agenda.
And this account is not as bad as some other accounts. I'd have never sent the US Cav a horse of mine.

Feel free to take the long distance ride with 30% or even 25% (results will be better and your horse will do better). Ride from AZ to Ohio State University Ag school (I think that's where they did the testing) or where ever that study was done (the distance from AZ will certainly qualify as a long distance ride, not just a couple hundred miles). No more than 2 days rest a week. Try to average 100 miles a day (I know that can be tough when you're horse is getting tired, but remember that you're out to prove a point so persevere) Arrange to ride the last 5 consecutive days with no rest days as you finish the trip and have them test your horse on the day you arrive, after you've removed all your gear and saddle and the horse gets some water and food. If you trotted it the last few miles give it 30 min cool down while it eats and gets water before they take the samples and do the examination (I'm sure they'll be interested in the results). If they find all results and readings a at normal levels (as you claim they would) I'll stand corrected and send you a check so you can have dinner with the Mrs. at The Steak Out (spelling???) if it's still there (was at a crossroads with 3 buildings in the middle of nowhere outside of Ft Huachuca). Back in the early 80's they had a great 32 oz porterhouse (came with a baked potato and skillet of beans). If they find that there is stress, then you can chalk it up to knowledge gained the hard way and go back home a bit wiser than you left.
Remember, it's not about what a horse can manage to do. It's about what it can do with less measurable stress or impact, because the impact of the stress, when not recovered from, can continue to build. Eventually, at some point, it will start to manifest itself. That is what the long distance rider has to avoid. That is why the endurance racer rests afterwards. Two very different styles of riding with very different objectives which place different requirements on the horse (and rider for that matter).


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm sorry, I meant to say "try to average 100 miles per week" Wow, if you did 100 miles be day for even 2 days and that horse even looked presentable I'd be impressed beyond measure.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

oops, I did mention endurance racing in my first post. So sorry. I must have known you were coming bsms :rofl: since I listed the argument that you always make. Hopefully, using what was in the Tevis Cup test (the closest thing you have to a test for your argument, you now realize is a non point since the Tevis Cup test says nothing to disprove the university study or visa versa which gives your argument no scientific basis. Unless of course you're saying that the only impact that a horse can have must be critical. That would mean any thing that impacts a horse is critical and if it's not critical there's no impact???  I don't think so.


----------

