# The "how much weight" question revisited.



## elle1959 (Sep 7, 2015)

According to this article, the answer to the often-asked question about how much weight a horse can safely carry is 20% of its body weight or less. I've seen this question asked here before so thought I'd post this for others to comment. 

How Much Weight Can a Horse Carry? - Horse Science News


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

:icon_rolleyes:We need a "Pass the popcorn" emoji for threads like this one.:cheers:


----------



## gingerscout (Jan 18, 2012)

the more people stress the 20% or less rule.. the more my eyes roll, my headphones go on, and I walk away..lol


----------



## elle1959 (Sep 7, 2015)

Dreamcatcher Arabians said:


> :icon_rolleyes:We need a "Pass the popcorn" emoji for threads like this one.:cheers:


Sorry! I know it's a controversial subject but found it interesting that the study came to the same conclusion as was published many, many years ago!


----------



## gingerscout (Jan 18, 2012)

and 90% of people don't realize the 20% rule was written for horses that worked 8+ hours a day 7 days a week.. how many horses actually have that kind of workload now


----------



## elle1959 (Sep 7, 2015)

That's a good question. ETA: And also, this study only looked at eight horses. Not really a very robust study.


----------



## PaintHorseMares (Apr 19, 2008)

elle1959 said:


> That's a good question. ETA: And also, this study only looked at eight horses. Not really a very robust study.


... and they only talked about horse weight, not body type, which I think is a big factor in how much weight a horse can carry.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

It surprises me that people are still posting the 20% guideline as if it were new, it has been around for ever....but it is only that a guideline.

If you believe research done in the UK we should be aiming at 10 - 15%

I found a weird and obscure research article from Japan, I think, that stated 30%

Then there is this https://www.arabianhorses.org/education/education_history_usarmy.asp


> 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.


I don't know what weight those Arabians were, but I would guess that they were less than 1225 pounds, so were carrying way over 20%

I do not believe that there will ever be a definitive easy answer to this ongoing thorny question.

So many variables, what purpose is the weight carrying?

Obviously a horse maybe able to carry a greater weight for a 15 minute walk on firm level ground than he could for 8 hours galloping across country and jumping fences.

What is the horses build? Solid dense bone, shorter back, wide across the loins, wide solid horse will be better suited for weight carrying than the fine legged, tall slim types.

What age and fitness level is the horse? The young and the old are not good choices for weight carrying, nor is the unfit horse.

20%...now here we get to the bones of a mathematical formula, it would be my guess that not many people actually KNOW how much their horse weighs, they guess, they use weight tapes or formulas to calculate the weight, but not many people actually put them on the scales. I was shocked when one mare that I had used my skill and judgement, and a weight tape and had been worming her at 950 pounds, when she actually went on a scale I was shocked that she was 1200 pounds :shock:

Another problem with 20%, we are talking about 20% of the horses fit weight, an overweight horse is already carrying part of that 20% in it's own fat

UNLESS

That is even more complicated, take a horse that is 'fluffy' carrying 100 pounds of flab, because it has been standing about eating and not doing much, now you bring it into work, it loses the soft fat, builds hard muscle, so how much does it's weight change? This now fascinates me as I hadn't thought about it before...I know that I am fitter than I was last year, my clothes fit better, but I weigh the same....mmmm must look into fat weight and muscle weight for horses.

Now we move onto the rider, so many factors here as well, level of ability, balance, fitness, fat distribution. 

Oh, choice of saddle, A western saddle weighs a lot more than an English, but it is is easier for a horse to carry a heavier weight with a good fitting Western than a good fitting English saddle.


Every single bigger rider I know worries about their weight, they tend to be anal about saddle fit, have regular chiropractic or other checks, they listen to their horse. In my case I rely on my trainer to be my sanity check, she gets to watch me working horses and had no issue telling me that I was too big for one of my horses. Also had no issue telling me that once my lease horse was sold she had nothing to carry me....

So yes, 20% good enough start point, but it is so much more complicated than that.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Does this person look like he is 20% of that horse's body weight? Like I have said before....in endurance racing, we see the vet at LEAST 3 times ( for limited distance, which is at least 25 miles), and generally 5 or 6 times....no one has ever questioned him riding....


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Discussed ad nauseum on this thread, and I'd as soon be emasculated as go thru it again:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/am-i-too-big-his-horse-605666/#post7780178

On Cowboy, who has hauled my butt for 2 hours and been willing and forward at the end...at about 30%:










And no, the US Cavalry NEVER came to the conclusion of 20%! Their standard called for roughly 25% - a 250 load on a 1000 lb horse.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Also what factors in his how long is the horse's back, how fit are they, how long have they been schooling or working a certain way, how balanced are they with said rider, what is the balance of the saddle, what is the saddle being used for, how good of a rider is the horse carrying, how healthy are the horse's hooves, how much conditioning does the horse get, how much is this horse being ridden, how frequently is this horse being ridden, are they being ridden correctly... and so on and so fourth

You can't put all of those questions into one blanket statement and say that all horses no matter the type can carry X% amount of their weight. You just can't.

For my horse, though, I have gained some weight and lost significant muscle since I last rode... and he's coming into work. I have noticed that I am definitely not as balanced as I used to be, and I'm sure that is affecting him.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

When the calvary came up with the 20% riders were chosen that fit into that range. They knew there would be an additional hundred or so pounds of saddle and gear. The weight of the gear couldn't be controlled but the weight of the rider could.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

"In conclusion, the data suggest that horses with wider loin and thicker cannon bone circumference became less sore when carrying heavier weight loads."

So conformation does play a part, even in this limited study. And the 20% figure was arrived at because that's what the horses could carry without any spike in plasma lactate concentration or muscle soreness. The interesting question is whether these horses would adapt to carrying the heavier weight and the resulting differences in blood chemistry and muscle soreness would disappear as they strengthened.

http://www.j-evs.com/article/S0737-0806(07)00413-3/abstract


----------



## TXhorseman (May 29, 2014)

Aside from the other variables discussed earlier in this thread, one should consider how the rider rides the horse. Anyone who has carried someone on their shoulders or even their back should realize that the better the rider sits, the easier it is to carry their weight. Balance is a very important consideration. This balance includes the movement necessary to stay in balance as the horse moves.


----------



## GreySorrel (Mar 5, 2012)

Yes weight is a huge touchy issue with many people...but I do want to say that just because a horse can carry you or did in history, doesn't mean they should. We all know that horses are stoic animals by nature, I have seen people who have horses who they ride who are heavy who shouldn't be on it, but it is not my place to say something as I would be tar, feathered and run out of town, so to speak. 

I am not by any means fat, I am average weight for my height as I am a tall woman, but I do not ride horses smaller than 15.3H. All my horses are 16H, even when I was younger and weighed a lot less, I am very mindful of what I ride, how I ride, my balance, seat, hands and if the horse is smaller than that or light boned, I don't ride it. I personally know my limits and won't push it or get on a horse who is shorter, finer boned or I have no business being on due to the weight I am at. I also don't get mad when I have had where I work say I wouldn't be allowed to ride or exercise their cutting horses, who are all 14.2H or so, because of my height and weight. 

Many people who are heavy just will not admit that they have no business being on a smaller horse at the heavier weight, it all boils down to oh well this person rides in this seat, or this type of rider rides this kind of horse, or I HAVE to ride or I will become this or this or that, excuses....no one wants to be brutally honest with themselves that they ARE heavy or over weight or really have no business on that horse. And we as a society don't want to be brutally honest so we pat fanny and we fawn and we say oh you look good. Loose weight...exercise....eat smaller portions...cut sugar and carbs etc. out of your diet...walk....it isn't easy and it isn't quick...I know...I have lost almost 50lbs and my daughter 108lbs...but we did it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I disagree. Lots of men would have to give up riding entirely if that were true. Height has very little to do with weight bearing capacity, and the idea that a horse needs to be 16 hands to carry significant weight without concern doesn't match my experience.

Trooper is now my biggest horse - at 850 lbs. Bandit is slightly taller, but slimmer - maybe 800 lbs. Last week, Trooper was ridden for 2 hours by a guy who is 6'5" tall, and Bandit was ridden the same by a guy who is 6'3" tall. Walking, trotting, a little cantering. Going off trails across the desert. The 6'5" guy had never ridden before. Neither guy is fat, but they aren't beanpoles either!

Trooper and Bandit were both ready to return to their corrals, but massaging their back showed no signs of discomfort.

The US Cavalry used to assume a riding weight of 250 lbs - about 140-150 for the rider, and the rest in gear. The British Cavalry assumed a normal duty weight of almost 300 lbs - 150 each for rider and equipment. They rode all day, going distances that few recreational riders attempt. They were pushing their horses hard and they did have concerns about sore backs and losing weight - but they usually did it successfully.

The horse below was famous for his endurance - while being ridden by a 6'5" sheriff chasing bad guys across Arizona (look at where the stirrups hang). He looks to me like he was built like the horse in my avatar:








​ 
Horses need to be conditioned for riding, but they can handle a surprising amount of weight.

BTW - not all horses are stoic. I'm not even sure most are. Lots of riders are unobservant, but I'm not sure that means most horses are stoic. Most of my horses are pretty expressive.


----------



## GreySorrel (Mar 5, 2012)

Again, just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD....


----------



## gingerscout (Jan 18, 2012)

and just because people preach the 20% rule, doesn't mean people listen to it or take it to heart either:wink:


----------



## GreySorrel (Mar 5, 2012)

gingerscout said:


> and just because people preach the 20% rule, doesn't mean people listen to it or take it to heart either:wink:


Your right because how many people really truly care enough about their health and their horse to want to truly change and do? I am dealing with a friend who is over weight and her horses are light boned and she can't ride them. So instead of loosing weight, instead of doing what is right, she is now looking for a heavier horse, a draft or draft cross and a home for one of them. I find that disgusting.


----------



## gingerscout (Jan 18, 2012)

no I care about my horse, but the people who's attitude is anyone over 200 pounds should just ride a couch and stay off a horse is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, part of the reason I have NEVER ridden English, even though learning is a bucket list item for me, the whole skinny as a bean pole light as a feather to ride thing is rubbish


----------



## GreySorrel (Mar 5, 2012)

gingerscout said:


> no I care about my horse, but the people who's attitude is anyone over 200 pounds should just ride a couch and stay off a horse is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, part of the reason I have NEVER ridden English, even though learning is a bucket list item for me, the whole skinny as a bean pole light as a feather to ride thing is rubbish


I ride english, I am not tall bean pole thin: 


And the horse I ride at work, who is 15.3H:


I am 5'9" and 206lbs currently, give or take on a good or bad day.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

GreySorrel said:


> Again, just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD....


If they should not, then the burden of proof is on you - since you claim they cannot do so without harming the horse. But the cavalry had hundreds of thousands of horses, and they did it all the time. At 5'8" and 160, I'm a runt of a guy, but I'd be one of the few guys who made the weight limit a lot of folks want to impose. Does that mean riding should now be limited to small women?

Trooper and Bandit both were ridden last week at roughly 30% for 2 hours, and showed no signs of soreness. I rubbed their backs and watched for any twinge - and didn't get a flicker. Do I believe my eyes, or unsubstantiated concerns voiced on the Internet?

BTW - my stoic horses get very un-stoic if the saddle doesn't fit OK or if it is positioned wrong. As in bucking-ly un-stoic. Yet with a proper fitting and positioned saddle, they turn stoic even with big guys riding them. Odd.


----------



## GreySorrel (Mar 5, 2012)

I am not saying my opinion is right or wrong, just my opinion. Would I let someone heavy ride my horses? No. They are MY responsibility. When I started working at the barn I was at, when the owner asked if I rode english, my first question to him was, are you okay with my height and weight. He smiled and said there was no issue, if there was he would tell me. There are riding stables here who have a 200lb weight limit, and that goes for their draft and half drafts as well. I was stating what I feel. 

As for the cavalry...again, yes those horses often carried quite heavy loads. How many broke down? How many were lost? How many died due to lack of proper care? 

The Civil War:
"Despite the thousands of horses killed or wounded in battle, the highest number were lost to disease or exhaustion. The Tenth Massachusetts Battery lost 157 horses between October 18, 1862, and April 9, 1865. Out of these horses, 112 died from disease. Forty-five of these succumbed to glanders. Glanders, a highly contagious disease that affects the skin, nasal passages, and respiratory tracts of a horse, was most widespread. Another forty-five horses from the same battery were lost to fatigue; they simply became too exhausted to work and were put to death."

Deborah Grace, The Horse in the Civil War

I could go on and on what the horse has endured because of us human's, especially in the time of war.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Horses undoubtedly died in war, as did humans. But they did not break down under service on a normal basis. When pushed very hard - as in 40-50 miles/day for 2-3 weeks without break, they lost weight. Some died. Men did too. Tom Roberts, who was in the British Cavalry in WW1, mentioned a retreat where everyone was on the move for several days. The horses' backs were getting sore, so they stopped every two hours, took the saddles and gear off, and massaged the backs for 5 minutes on a side. Then they saddled up again and went another two hours. That stopped the sore backs.

A cavalry commander was responsible for the condition of his horses. That meant he was also responsible for checking on them. And I checked the backs of Trooper and Bandit last week to see if it was OK to let a couple of big guys ride them - and as best I could see, neither horse had a problem. Trooper is fairly stoic, but Bandit is not. I couldn't get either to flick an ear or twitch a muscle rubbing their backs afterward. They both ate with enthusiasm and moved about freely.

I guess that is the bottom line for me. I've watched big guys ride small horses, and seen no sign the small horses were bothered. Add in the experience of the cavalry using uncounted thousands of horses, and I can at least claim my belief has been thought out honestly.

If others want to use a different limit for their horses, that is fine. For TRAIL use, at a walk and trot an occasional canter, I'm confident in my approach. I don't ever ask my horses to jump, spin or sustain a collected gait. 

Bandit was used for endurance racing by a guy who is a lot bigger than me. I think it was wrong. Why? Because Bandit would brace his back like an I-beam for a trot or canter, which tells me he was protecting his back. He no longer does so unless he thinks he is racing. Then he reverts to form. But he now uses his back and can jog without tension.

I think the best bet is to watch the horse. If your horse is tensing up, or reluctant to do X, then maybe there is a reason. Could be saddle fit. Could be use of the bit. Or it could be the rider's weight. Or a foot problem, or something else. Analyze and adjust.


----------



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

elle1959 said:


> According to this article, the answer to the often-asked question about how much weight a horse can safely carry is 20% of its body weight or less. I've seen this question asked here before so thought I'd post this for others to comment.
> 
> How Much Weight Can a Horse Carry? - Horse Science News


 
Rather than get into all this AGAIN and again and again and again......I'll attach a post that covers most of it AND bsms favorite arguments against the university study done in 2007 (I believe) that measured biochemical effects on horses worked at different % of weight carried. 
A friend told me I should check on the Long Riders Guild since they do long distance riding. I did. I'm not a member since I've yet to do 1,000 miles in one trip. Might never exceed 1,000 miles in one trip. Just have to wait and see. However, even these riders, who have all exceeding 1,000 and some exceeded 10,000 miles, agree with the 20% rule. That rule is really one 1 of 3 rules, but it's the easiest to remember and the one people make note of. The other two are cannon bone size (there's a formula for calculating it based on weight of horse and everything it's carrying) and loin size.
They like that rule because they know that their horses will have to deal with any physical stresses far longer than 99.9% of the rest of the equine riding communities horses. As a result they will end up breaking down. Hence my ID on here: "its lbs not miles". Meaning it's not the distance you ride that will break down your horse as much as it's the weight you force it to carry those distances.

Anyway, if you want to read the post. It covers several items. Including the Tevis Cup study, and how well Cav horses held up. It's a LONG post .

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-tra...quences-only-riding-618617/page9/#post7996842

Now, as I always say, I need to keep in mind how much riding and work you do with your horse. How many people average about 20 miles a day when they ride? How many people ride about 100 miles a week? People who ride several hours a week, even if they're doing 40 miles a week, are not really working their horses much. Spread it out of 5 days it's 8 miles a day with 2 days off. Less then 15 hours riding time for the week.
That's way you don't see most people's horses showing visible signs from effects of overloading. They don't have to deal with it as long and have time to recover.

Just read the linked post. It covers most of it.


----------



## IamKateLyn (Sep 20, 2019)

I remember one post from social media which I read days ago. She was into riding and was asking if her 200lbs weight can be handled by her newly bought horse.


----------



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

Horsyland said:


> I remember one post from social media which I read days ago. She was into riding and was asking if her 200lbs weight can be handled by her newly bought horse.


This was an old thread LOL
I know this is going to open a bucket of worms.
Did she happen to give information about the horse (namely size and condition)?

200 lb. rider (we'll say that's fully clothed with boots)
30 lb. kit (saddle, blanket/pad, etc... I'm being generous and keeping it light)
At least 230 lb. (likely more)

Now for the typical sort of riding that is done my 99.9% of all riders (which is less than about 6 hours a week....I've barrel racers who don't average 6 hours a week), if her horse is not very small (900lb of less) then it should be able to deal with it without her noticing any problems (most people don't notice them anyway). Typically, most riders ride maybe 3 days a week. Usually on weekends when they might have time to do a trail ride or some bushwhacking if they're more energetic). If she's riding a 1,000lb animal it will feel the effect of the weight, but will have several days of recovery time so, all things being equal, there shouldn't be any noticeable problem. Like an athlete who plays a hard game, runs a grueling race, etc...will be tired with some muscle ache, but a little rest for a day or two and they feel better.

Now if she's going to put in 40 miles a week at 230 lbs. then I hope the horse is in pretty good shape and weighs about 1100 lbs. A lighter horse can do it, but if that is the normal amount of riding it will eventually start to have an impact in month or two probably, depending on how much smaller the horse is (but most people don't notice even then, but I've seen horses try to tell them).

I'm 169 lbs. fully dressed for an equine camping trip with pants, boots, military leather leggings, hat, shirt, etc... (working on dropping 7 of those lbs. from my body weight of 162). My lighter mare is just under 1200lbs (the other is just over 1200). That leaves me about 70lbs. for my saddle, blanket and whatever I'm going to need if I go out a few weeks riding trip. 

This is not to say that there are not times when it's good to overload a horse. I do it. It's the only way to remodel the canon bones (make them larger and denser) I'll fill up water jugs (water weighs over 8lbs/gal.) and put them in the bags. I've loaded up to 300lbs on a horse and ridden 5-9 miles 3 times a week. Shirt rides by my standard, but it's a lot of weight. The result is heavier canon bones which is one of the three things that "should" matter to the distance riding (for the sake of their horse).

In general though, for the extremely light work load that most horses have and the long periods of recovery time they get I wouldn't worry about a rider putting a 35% load on their horse providing the horses is in good condition. The horse will feel the effects, but most people ride so little and for so short a time that with 4-5 days off it has plenty of time to recover in-between.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Interesting, . . . about loading the horse to remodel the canon bones. I bet 'my' canon bones are huge! (I've been loading them for the last 20 years).


No, but all jokes aside, I am 214 lbs in my birhtday suit. add in clothes and English saddle, it's gotta be about 240 lbs. I've been riding a large Andalusian for the last 6 years. When I started riding him, he had noticeably dropped fetlocks, especially in front. Now, after 3 times a week, 1 to 2 hour trails rides by me, I swear that his front legs are tighter; the fetlock more correct. 

The riding under weight has IMPROVED his front legs, not degraded them.


But, I am having some issues now with saddle fit, since he peeled off about 100lbs, and am a bit more concerned about back discomfort. Gotta work that problem.


----------



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

tinyliny said:


> Interesting, . . . about loading the horse to remodel the canon bones. I bet 'my' canon bones are huge! (I've been loading them for the last 20 years).
> 
> 
> No, but all jokes aside, I am 214 lbs in my birhtday suit. add in clothes and English saddle, it's gotta be about 240 lbs. I've been riding a large Andalusian for the last 6 years. When I started riding him, he had noticeably dropped fetlocks, especially in front. Now, after 3 times a week, 1 to 2 hour trails rides by me, I swear that his front legs are tighter; the fetlock more correct.
> ...


The building up the canon bones never degrades them. Although, if you've been loading it for 6 years you've taken that horse's canon bones as far as they are going to go unless you add more weight (but I would not recommend going over 35% the horse's weight at most). Everyone should take the time to properly build up their horse's canon bones. While weight carried, canon bone size/density, and loin size are the big three horse conditioning factors for distance riding (not that everyone has them all perfect LOL) all horses that are being ridden benefit from having their canon bones and loins strengthened.

Keep in mind that if you've been loading it for 6 years you've taken that horse's canon bones as far as they are going to go unless you add more weight and there is a point where it stops anyway. There is a formula (and I know I've put it on some thread) for calculating the best canon bone size for the weight it's expected to routinely carry. For my two loaded for a week of camping it's about 10" circumference. The horse's weight is also factor into it since if all things are equal (and proper) a horse will naturally develop canon bones suited to it's own body weight.

Andalusians are one of the lighter baroque breeds and baroque breeds tend to be on the slightly heavier side of riding horse breeds (Lipizzaner, Friesian, etc...), so they are still usually a good sized horse (not small) and most of the ones I've seen are at least 1000lb. 240lbs load is not a major deal for a horse that size to carry for 6 hours a week. At 1000lb it's only 24% of his body weight. In fact it would take you many weeks (likely more than just a couple of months) of 100 or more miles per week with maybe 10+ more pounds before there might be a noticeable negative impact and it would not be a problem with the canon bones but more likely muscle fatigue. An ill fitting saddle would become a problem sooner by soring the back muscles (and I would not recommend the European style....people call English, although it's not actually....saddle for long distances since it does not displace the rider's weight over as broad an area across the horse's back). Again, as with weight, it's usually not a noticeable thing for the riding done by most people with that sort of saddle, but it's why the British dumped it in the mid 1800's and went to the UP (Universal Pattern) saddle (better tree design for displacing weight) which their mounted troops still use today, and the US (around the same time) went to the McClellan (which was not a better choice than the UP, but like the UP it was better than the "English" saddle for displacing weight, and less expensive than the UP). All of which will not matter one bit for you since you ride less in a week than a campaigning trooper did in a day LOL.


----------



## IamKateLyn (Sep 20, 2019)

its lbs not miles said:


> This was an old thread LOL
> I know this is going to open a bucket of worms.
> Did she happen to give information about the horse (namely size and condition)?
> 
> ...


Haha, I have revived this post! Yey! Thanks for this! If ever I come across the post of that woman again, I will link this to her!


----------



## lostastirrup (Jan 6, 2015)

Tossing in my thought. 


It hadn't occured to me to figure out Pony's weight, and my load. According to a weight tape algorithm Nick is about 800lb that leaves his 20% at 160. Which is not much, but I weigh 110-115 fully clothed. Add a saddle 20#. And we sit at 130-135. Hes pretty happy with that weight. But that gives you a "person limit" of +20-25# which is about 140 maxed out. That's not a very big human being. That leaves out most men and a large portion of women. Keep in mind we ride 4-6 days a week depending on exams. In the summer it's 7days a week. The work is varied- dressage (x2/wk) trail riding/trekking (10+ miles x1/wk) jumping (1-3x /week) and the rest is conditioning hill work and light trail riding just from the barn. At that work load in this saddle he is quite comfy. However I have noticed if I put larger riders on him for arena work his quality of movement declined dramatically and he may become a little sore on his back. There are problems in this generalization though. 1. Generally the seat of the person (heavier than me) that I put on him is often not quiet enough or independent enough. Add more mass to more acceleration towards the back owing to "bouncing" and you have forces that have increased at least by an order of magnitude. If I had a quiet good seated larger rider that would work him- I probably would see a different response in my horse. Also my saddle is small. 16" English saddle. If you were to perhaps put a saddle with a larger surface area on him coupled with a heavier rider, he would probably be more comfortable with the added weight. My suspicion on this comes from the fact I've ridden him with heavier western saddles (summarize at 45# + 115#+5# saddle bags @ 165#) and he is perfectly comfortable and shows no sign of discomfort. 

In essence I wonder if more of the loading problems has to do with 1. Ability of the rider to minimize their impact on the horse 2. Anatomy of the saddle to reduce high pressure dense areas. 


Edit: afterthought: generally starting young horses its best to post the trot or stand in the stirrups and at canter ride in a half seat. As I can understand we do this to reduce the impact on their back since they have not developed the topline to carry a rider. We assume any kind of acceleration towards the back from sitting trot or the down of posting is applying a force proportional to it's speed. So the worst thing you could do is bounce up and down in the tack. The best we can do is reduce our force to the simple acceleration of gravity and our own mass (weight on planet Earth). So for green riders- we get them to post, (or they learn their seat when the weigh as much as a shrimp riding on broadback ponies bareback.) If you sit the trot well, you can get with the rhythm in such a way that you can minimize your acceleration towards the back (but not get rid of it) if you cannot- you can cause worlds of damage. In terms of most minimizing forces- I would say standing in the stirrups would likely be best since all acceleration towards the back independent of weight is in theory absorbed by the riders knees bending and closing to compensate for Delta S. Posting would be second place with most but not all forces dissipated. And last place would be sitting the trot. Honorary worst than last place would be sitting the trot with a poor seat and inflicting bouncing on the poor horse. It takes strength from the horse to raise the back and meet the rider- so for young horses, green horses, weak horses, we ride in such a way that they can develop muscle over their topline and also learn that they never need to drop or protect their back since we won't in our training overload it. In dressage you see this as sitting trot is not required until 2nd level and not allowed until training level. The horses simply do not need sustained sitting trot forces on their backs until their toplines are quite good. Moral of the story: if the horse has dropped and is protecting it's back- find some way to get off of it more, and don't push for sitting trot until the horse and rider are well enough developed to do so. 
Thems my thoughts.


----------



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

lostastirrup said:


> Tossing in my thought.
> 
> 
> It hadn't occured to me to figure out Pony's weight, and my load. According to a weight tape algorithm Nick is about 800lb that leaves his 20% at 160. Which is not much, but I weigh 110-115 fully clothed. Add a saddle 20#. And we sit at 130-135. Hes pretty happy with that weight. But that gives you a "person limit" of +20-25# which is about 140 maxed out. That's not a very big human being. That leaves out most men and a large portion of women. Keep in mind we ride 4-6 days a week depending on exams. In the summer it's 7days a week. The work is varied- dressage (x2/wk) trail riding/trekking (10+ miles x1/wk) jumping (1-3x /week) and the rest is conditioning hill work and light trail riding just from the barn. At that work load in this saddle he is quite comfy. However I have noticed if I put larger riders on him for arena work his quality of movement declined dramatically and he may become a little sore on his back. There are problems in this generalization though. 1. Generally the seat of the person (heavier than me) that I put on him is often not quiet enough or independent enough. Add more mass to more acceleration towards the back owing to "bouncing" and you have forces that have increased at least by an order of magnitude. If I had a quiet good seated larger rider that would work him- I probably would see a different response in my horse. Also my saddle is small. 16" English saddle. If you were to perhaps put a saddle with a larger surface area on him coupled with a heavier rider, he would probably be more comfortable with the added weight. My suspicion on this comes from the fact I've ridden him with heavier western saddles (summarize at 45# + 115#+5# saddle bags @ 165#) and he is perfectly comfortable and shows no sign of discomfort.
> ...


1. You are clearly more observant than most riders if you're catching the drop in performance under a heavier weight. Unfortunately, many horses spend all their time under saddle with a heavier weight so they don't really know the difference and the riders would be unlikely to pick up on it anyway. Fortunately, as I've said many times, it's not really an issue with the number of hours or days spent under a heavier weight.

2 Riding 4-6 days a week is closer to my Fall - Spring riding schedule since I do extremely little riding after the weather gets and the horse flies as big as my thumb show up. You didn't say, but I'll guess that on dressage or jumping days the horse is "working" about 1, maybe 2, hours a day. which is still very light work, but would make the one trail day at over 10 miles a more moderate work day. In season I generally ride about 20+ miles 4-7 days a week, but if I'm on a camping ride I'll do a rest period for a couple of days during each week dependent on finding a place I can camp for a couple of days with access to potable water. Yes, all things being equal, men will tend to be heavier than women. A poor understanding of history is partly to blame for why so many people are mistaken about the weight a working horse should be dealing with. 150 years ago, when open range and the big cattle drives were being done (open range pretty much ended by the late 1880's when rail heads were put in at various locations which meant long drives were no long needed....and cattle didn't lose as much weight getting to market so more money for the cattlemen) the "real" cowboys (as oppose to ranch hands which is what most people think of as "cowboys" today) didn't weigh much more than you do. They were quite small by todays standards and on the smaller side even by the standard of that day. In fact, even the average Cav trooper generally weighed under 150lbs fully clothed. Most cowboys working the range might even have a backup horse (or two) so that each animal could get a break from work. It was a different world, but people tend to not take into account how very different it really was with both horses and men being smaller and horses being rotated for days off work. Today people seem to think that this massive men in the Western and war movies or the modern ranch hands are what the old time cowboys and Cav were like. A completely mistaken perception.

3. Yes a riders ability in the saddle will impact the horse. The biochemical effects of the extra weight will take place regardless though. The body can be trained and prepared to deal with things efficiently and effectively, but it that does not prevent biochemical actions from taking place. An experienced and well trained marathon racer is still going to hit "the wall" at some point in the race. Their training and conditioning (along with the shear will to go on) is what makes it possible for them to complete the race, but the effect on the body still happens and their body has to recover and return to normal afterwards. That recovery time is much greater than what is needed for someone doing a 50 yard dash. It's not just the weight the horse carries, but the amount of work it's having to do under that load. Which is what leads many to believe that a horse can work fine with even a 30% load. For the very little amount of work most horses do, if they're in good shape, 30% isn't likely to be a problem. Very little work with loads of recovery time.

3. Yes, you're conclusion about saddles is correct. Even a heavier saddle is easier on the horse if it displaces the weight carried over a larger area. Same as with people. If I'm going to carry my gear on my back then carrying 50lbs in just a rucksack is tougher than carrying 75lbs in a rucksack with a frame, because of the weight displacement. Of course getting a saddle with a frame that displaces more weight AND doesn't way so much itself is even better )). You can get a good saddle with a good weight displacing tree that's under 20lbs from certain saddle makers (not this big saddle companies, but individual saddle makers who customize the saddle to fit the specific horse).

If you ever find pictures of the women and men who do or have done serious long distance riding you'll find that none of them are/were heavy people and they usually started out with, or ended up with, saddles that had trees which displaced weight better. Even with that, many of them also took a pack horse (or more than one) since they might not be able to readily resupply each week and they knew better than to put too much weight on any horse. Trip comes to a quick stop when the horse's back pain reaching a point that it finally decides it's had enough. Then there's the long wait while it recovers (and hopefully the problem was just the weight and not the saddle). For people who are going to be living out of the saddle for a time it's saddle fit, size of canon bones, size of loins, and the weight carried to have the best odds of the horse doing well (and it is all about keep the horse in good shape). A short back helps too, but that's not something you can anything about (either it's short or it's not).

Posting or standing, as you so aptly put it, is always going to be easier for a trotting horse. If on my older mare it will be significantly easier on the rider since sitting her trot is worst than riding a jackhammer. If you had fillings in your teeth you won't when you finish.


----------



## lostastirrup (Jan 6, 2015)

^^
Completely agree. I will say shorter rides do not instantly mean lighter work. Jumping and dressage are kept to a minimum in the same way you would only weight lift 1-3x a week and hike or run the rest. It's quite the workout for the muscles- doing the engagement in both the jumping and the dressage can leave the pony huffing and puffing far more than when he gets back from a 16 mile ride in the mountains. And it's harder on the joints than conditioning work (where I am at I have a lovely sand hill that we work to keep him in shape without applying undue stress) this is why I think I do see more effect by weight when asked to do dressage. It requires much more strength on Pony's part to lift his back and collect than it is to work for several hours up and down the mountains. When you couple the need for increased strength to maintain the gaits and collection, with a rider who is not helping the horse and being a hindrance, the decline in the gaits is significant. I have seen more horses sored up by dressage riders and jumpers who overdo their 45 minute sessions at high intensity with poor mechanics than by trail riders who ride a lot of miles for a lot of hours. The benefit is there to the horse that the rider may on occasion become unbalanced but will not likely be unbalanced and asking for a difficult extended movement at the same time- which is I think where the largest issue comes in and why the issues are exacerbated with pony in the arena work. 


Although you made me think of something my saddle fitter told me- "if you ride 1x a week for 20 minutes you can pretty much put any old piece of leather on your horse and it will be fine, if you start doing harder, or longer or more frequent work, then we have to get serious about saddle fit" which I think supports your point that the light riding that we do now is largely not affected by the weight of the rider. Plenty of recovery time covers up a multitude of sins.


----------



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

Well, I'd have to say that short rides, even under a load or doing things like jumping, is "light work" LOL. If you ran two 50 yard dashes it takes a couple of minutes, it is work, but it's light work. Digging a 50 foot deep well by hand which will take many hours and is not light work. Or to put it in easy to compare equine comparison.....How tired are you and how much muscle work do you think would do, or how tired do you think you would be after a couple hours of dressage or jumping vs 8+ hours covering 25+ miles (we won't compare it to doing 75 miles in a day which is even more work). If a horse is not pulling a heavy wagon or under a heavy load then an hour or two is "light" work for a horse that's in any sort of good shape.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Speaking as a runner myself - a 20 minute run stresses my body far more than walking for hours. My back was throbbing yesterday after doing a series of 1/4 mile fast runs (fast for me, which in my 60s isn't very fast). I know ranch horses who do 25 miles a day all the time. Mostly walking. That is as different from some types of sports riding as hiking is from playing basketball.

In terms of how much weight a horse can carry, walking is a 4 beat gait with little vertical movement. It puts minimal stress on both the back and legs. One simple answer to "How much weight?" is to start riding with a walk and see if the horse is interested in going faster. If your horse says, "Heck yes! Let's toss in a run or two!", then you are not too heavy. At that moment. 3 hours later the horse may give a different answer.

If one listens to the horse, the horse will tell you when you are too heavy, for too long or for faster, rougher riding. When running, I listen to my body. Changes in grade, temperature, elevation, humidity, the shoes I'm wearing that day, pavement versus dirt, if I ran the previous day, cloud cover - all of that factors in. A heart rate monitor would probably provide digital feedback that would closely match my inner feeling. What it wouldn't tell me is how much Motrin I'll need that night...


----------

