# How much weight should a horse carry? New study



## evergreen

An article in The Telegraph (w w w the telegraph dot co dot uk) entitled "Easy, rider. Why horses are feeling the strain of Britain’s obesity crisis"
refers to a study of 152 horses and their riders in the uk and suggests that 10% of the ideal horse weight is the optimum weight for a horse to carry, and that detrimental effects start to occur once 15% is reached. As the 20% weight rule is often bandied about and even challenged on here, I just thought you may be interested in discussing this article.


----------



## xlionesss

Well I'm not 100 lbs soooo......


----------



## hemms

Holy heck, I'd never get on a horse, lol!

Seriously, my ideal BMI places me between 10 & 15%. Not so unattainable, except that my current mount is MUCH more stoutly built than a normal horse of his profile... I do believe there are several riding mounts around the 1000lbs mark. I don't know many grown women that are a healthy 100lbs. yikes!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cat

I'd be curious what they are saying are "detrimental" effects are. Last study I saw was calling the "detrimental" effects of riding were discussing typical effects on the muscle one would see in a good workout as "detrimental". Without the article and details of the study it is impossible to say how serious to take this.


----------



## evergreen

I have to admit that it seems a little unrealistic to expect riders only to weigh 10% of their ideal horse weight. It would rule out many competition riders. But for once, the study draws on the opinions of vets and the number of horses in the study is a good sample size.


----------



## SouthernTrails

.

Here is the article Easy, rider. Why horses are feeling the strain of Britain’s obesity crisis - Telegraph

So it sounds like many of us need to go buy a 2,000 lb Horse?

The researchers from the Duchy College in Cornwall need to get a life, one that is realistic :lol::lol:

.


----------



## Roperchick

Well...I'm 5'8" and 125lbs riding horses that are 15-17hh a and in between 1100-1300 soooo I'm not worried. 

But I don't see how only 10% is ideal...that means on my GIANT 16.3 1300lb gelding I can only gain 5 more and still be considered "ideal" I don't understand.

Which would also mean that my 1100 lb mare I am almost at the 12%....hmmmmm


----------



## JustImagine

I'm 5'0" and weigh 115, and my 14.1 hh Arab weighs around 800 lbs...according to this article, I am way too large for him and only an 80 lb person should be riding him. I haven't weighed 80 lbs since I was in 4th grade. I'm definitely not the skinniest person in the world, but I wouldn't consider a size 5 overweight.
It's a bit hard for me to take that article seriously.


----------



## Clava

JustImagine said:


> I'm 5'0" and weigh 115, and my 14.1 hh Arab weighs around 800 lbs...according to this article, I am way too large for him and only an 80 lb person should be riding him. I haven't weighed 80 lbs since I was in 4th grade. I'm definitely not the skinniest person in the world, but I wouldn't consider a size 5 overweight.
> It's a bit hard for me to take that article seriously.


But at your weight you are 14% which was considered "satisfactory" not way too large.:?


----------



## Joe4d

What a giant steaming pile of malarkey, the STUDY, just studied how many riders were at 10 percent. NO mention of where or why they came up with the 10 percent number. I think some of them might want to go actually ride a horse.


----------



## Clava

Joe4d said:


> What a giant steaming pile of malarkey, the STUDY, just studied how many riders were at 10 percent. NO mention of where or why they came up with the 10 percent number. I think some of them might want to go actually ride a horse.


 
It seems to suggest that over 15% can lead to health issues according to the vet quoted, rather than just listing how many riders were at that size. 49% seem to be overweight according to them (more than 15%) and the only suggestion is that bigger riders need bigger horses - which is true but no mention of conformation.:?


----------



## nvr2many

And I wonder how much this "study" cost them/others???

Geesh! Gimme a break!


----------



## Clayton Taffy

Wanted to buy.....

Clydesdale
Percheron
Belgian
Shire
Suffulk

Don't care anything about them as long as they weigh 2000 lbs.


----------



## Golden Horse

Haven't got time to read this just now, off to inflict considerably more than 10% on a horse.

I like that there is a big sample size here, but obviously will want to actually read and digest the findings before making any constructive comments.


----------



## Clava

nvr2many said:


> And I wonder how much this "study" cost them/others???
> 
> Geesh! Gimme a break!


 
Given how limited it is I doubt it cost very much.


----------



## Golden Horse

OK, now I have read it, and my take?

I need to look at the source article, not a newspaper report of the findings, because we all know you can't trust the media.

10% sounds a very very light ratio, and would remove swarths of riders from the population. 

For arguments sake, lets take the 10% as new cutting edge research and the new reality is that no horse will carry more than 10%, what would be the law of unintended consequences here?

Lots and lots of riders would now be unable to ride their horses, a % of them may successfully lose weight and maintain that loss, so they will be good to go. But there are a whole bunch of us who will never be able to sustain a weight that is 10% of our current mounts so what happens to them? I presume that the purchase price of draft crosses would shoot up, but lighter horses what would be the welfare considerations there?

I am assuming that horses all suffer some sort of wear and tear damage from most anything that we do to them, be it chasing cans, cutting cows, jumping fences, being a dressage star, each discipline must have some degree of damage, it is probably a question how much we are comfortable with.


----------



## tinyliny

sorry, but it's likely that almost all riding has detrimental affects on the horse, over time. Without a doubt, the horse who is ridden for a lifetime will have more joint damage than one who's never carried a rider for the same number of years. Think of all the military mounts that carried WELL over 10% of their weight. 

Honestly . . . . . get a life!


----------



## alexischristina

I don't think 152 horses is an adequate sample size given the studies you would need to do. Perhaps if that was the sample size for every percent bracket studied, but of those 152 horse / rider pairs how many were in satisfactory, and how many were above the limit? With horses and riders there are too many different conditions (floppy riders, potato sack riders vs. riders who move with the horse, different saddle weights, time spent in the saddle, the type of work done, horses physiology, etc.)


----------



## usandpets

10% would eliminate most adult riders except with draft or draft cross horses. Who would be able to train horses then? Jockeys or kids?

I didn't read the article, so I don't know much about the study. Such as, how long the study was done, ages, conformation, or body structure of the horses. With only 152 horses studied, were there different diversities of horses such as breeds and ages involved? 

Sounds like a study started by a PETA or similarly affiliated person. They probably are trying to eliminate all horseback riding.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nvr2many

usandpets said:


> Sounds like a study started by a PETA or similarly affiliated person. They probably are trying to eliminate all horseback riding.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I hope I never live to see that day!!!


----------



## Faye83

All I can say is Wow, I need a bigger horse and a lighter saddle! Lol, I dont believe that at all!


----------



## Tracer

I just read a different article on the same study, and I burst out laughing.

Firstly, the average thoroughbred in a race carries weights over 10%. There goes the 'sport of kings'.

Secondly, according to the BMI scale (another study I find to be ridiculous), in order for me to be 10% of a 1000lb horse I would have a BMI of 15.7. So basically, my option would be not ride a horse, or be seriously underweight. Hmm.

I'd love to hear the input of professional riders on this. All this study is doing is enforcing the image that the media forces upon us - to be unhealthily skinny. I have a few choice words to say to the people that conducted this study, none of which are suitable for viewing by a general audience.


----------



## Iseul

Shoot..there isn't even horses big enough to carry me then xD
I weigh 225# and my saddle 50#..Not sure horses have been bred to weigh what I supposedly need xD
I've never had a horse have detrimental effects from me riding..except maybe get a good whack on the butt or a bop between the ears, haha.

Guess I need to go be skin and bones and ride bareback!  ****
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## faye

I Currently weigh 17% of Reeco and he certainly doesnt struggle to carry me ever.

also essentialy that study says the fatter your horse is the more it can carry when the opposite is true (if it is carrying excess weight then if can carry less on its back)

Nor does it take into account that a good rider will ride lighter then a novice (most riding schools add 14lb to the weight of a begginer when calculating which horse to put them on).

I'll stick by my 20% which is a figure that has been around for a long time and makes sense.


----------



## equiniphile

Any "study" that defines weight-carrying ability in terms of weight ratios should be discredited, IMO. SO much more than weight goes into calculating carrying capacities. You need to look at conformation, bone density, soundness problems, rider ability, and the type of work the horse will be asked to do. The 20% rule is a guideline that is correct in a lot of cases, but it is not a hard-and-fast rule.


----------



## faye

equinphile, I use 20% on daily basis as a guide. obioulsy few lbs over for an experianced rider is not a problem, but for a complete begginer I'd want to go closer to the 10% mark!


----------



## equiniphile

Faye, the 20% is generally correct or close to correct when used as a basic guide. However, when actual studies are conducted, it would be more accurate to determine weight carrying ability based on bone structure and fitness rather than weight. For example, a 15.2hh, stout quarter horse with fantastic bone, great conformation and ideal fitness may weigh 1100lbs. However, a 14.2hh pony with terrible legs, a weak back and a few hundred pounds of extra fat could, realistically, weigh the same. Can they both comfortably carry 220 lbs? Absolutely not. The pony would struggle significantly because of his lack of fitness and poor conformation, though the quarter horse would probably be fine with more than that figure.

If a horse isn't a conformation trainwreck or vastly overweight, the 20% rule is fine to go by. I use it with my personal horses. All I'm saying is that it would be more accurate to take into account the horse's level of fitness and conformation, especially if the rider's weight is questionable.


----------



## bsms

20% is based on having almost no effect at all on the horse. The one study I've seen used out of shape horses, and 20% was the guideline for no discernible effect on the out of shape horses (not ridden for 4 months, then tested with a 45 min ride with 2 weeks off between rides). The cavalry came up with that figure for riding daily, 8+ hours at a shot, with no effect after weeks of riding. Very few recreational riders use their horse like that!

I've read a number of studies, and I've never found anything suggesting a weight limit below 20%.

If 10% or 15% was needed, almost no men would be able to ride horses. That defies a few thousand years of history...


----------



## faye

Equinphile I was just pointing out that I KNOW that and there is no need to lecture me ( you come across as very condicending!)


----------



## equiniphile

Sorry, Faye, I didn't mean to sound condescending. It's no secret that your experience in the horse world is far greater than mine ;-). Just wanted to clarify.


----------



## bsms

If the British vets in this article are right, most guys will need to switch to an IRON horse! Somehow, I doubt it will be the same...:?


----------



## Cat

I'm confused (nothing new) but reading this it does NOT sound like it was a study where they tested to see the effects of weight on a horse. There are not testing mechanisms for muscle or joint wear, or other testing parameters to monitor how the horse is fairing under the stress of the rider's weight.

Rather they had pre-set standards (under 10% ideal, 10-15% satisfactory, over 15% detrimental) with no indication on where they got those numbers. Then they took a random group and the "study" consisted of figuring out who fell in what range for their current mounts. Nothing more than a numbers game and a total BS study.


----------



## Joe4d

Cat said:


> I'm confused (nothing new) but reading this it does NOT sound like it was a study where they tested to see the effects of weight on a horse. There are not testing mechanisms for muscle or joint wear, or other testing parameters to monitor how the horse is fairing under the stress of the rider's weight.
> 
> Rather they had pre-set standards (under 10% ideal, 10-15% satisfactory, over 15% detrimental) with no indication on where they got those numbers. Then they took a random group and the "study" consisted of figuring out who fell in what range for their current mounts. Nothing more than a numbers game and a total BS study.


Pretty much what I said, no mention of where they came up with the numbers. Even if they did it would still be total bull.
Historically its wrong, at tevis its wrong, thousands of years of horse riding shows its wrong. But oh well I guess it gives skinny little girls that spend more time gossiping in the barn and picking out what color breeches are proper than actually riding something else to feel superior about.


----------



## Golden Horse

Now some more food for thought, is a child or a horse better suited for weight carrying?

This article Is Your Child's Backpack Too Heavy? is suggesting that your childs school bag should not weigh more than 10 - 20%. Genuine question is an upright walker better or worse than carrying weight than a 4 legged walker?


----------



## nvr2many

Oh wow! People need a life!


----------



## Muppetgirl

nvr2many said:


> Oh wow! People need a life!


No, I need a donut! :lol:


----------



## nvr2many

^^^ Sent you something, lol.


----------



## Golden Horse

If the article worried you I have the answer


----------



## Muppetgirl

Oh no, oh no, oh no ^^^^ now we are going to have to do a study on WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION on a horses back.......or two horses backs:lol:


----------



## Saddlebag

"The cavalry came up with that figure for riding daily, 8+ hours at a shot, with no effect after weeks of riding. Very few recreational riders use their horse like that!" Greater chance of suspensory ligament damage in horses who are owned by weekend warriors. A few gals enquired about barrel racing saddles and their light weight. When I suggested it would be cheaper to just lose 10 lbs that their own saddles were fine, it was met with disdane. What loaded question do woman ask these days? Am I too fat for my horse. If you ask then you probably are.


----------



## dreamer23

i cant see this article being all to accurate drought horses would have to take over lol, when i was doing endurance everybody weighed in either middleweight or heavyweight i was one of the only lightweight riders there. wouldn't be lightweight anymore tho lol after having 2 kids :-( but the heavy weight was 90 kg plus and middle weight was 75 kgs to 90kg and lightweight anything under that most of the riders were in the heavyweight division and everyone was riding arabs around 14.2 15hh so that makes no sense


----------



## GreySorrel

If a rider would listen to their horses, they are the one's who will tell you that your weight is too much or they are not happy. The ears going back at a canter, not being able to keep that horse at a canter a full circle around the arena or circle, having to urge him forward, wringing of the tail or flipping it around a lot, wrinkles around the nose, etc. All signs many ignore or make excuses to why the horse is acting that way.

Some heavier riders are great riders, they understand how the body works, where it should sit on a horse while in saddle, and have good to great riding skills, some I have seen even help the horse instead of hindering them. Their hands are quiet, they don't use the horses mouth to steady themselves or pull themselves up. While others look like a bowl of jello and don't have the leg strength to correctly post either. 

I myself could use to loose 20lbs and make no excuse for when I do ride poorly. I have a horse who fits me, I am a good rider and I know good body mechanics so I always try to put my horses best interest at heart. I also make sure my saddle fits my body, that my stomach nor my fanny hang over, which they don't but some do and don't even see or care to admit that. Have I seen some riders who are crappy no matter what? Yes sure have...and sometimes I wish they would admit that the discipline they are going to go into or are in just is not the one for them and just enjoy the horse.


----------



## Palomine

I don't agree with 10% but I do think weight matters to your horse's well being, as it should.

20% max and that includes saddle/blanket too is what I would be comfortable with. Which puts me perilously close on my two, if not over.

And tired of hearing people say "my horse is not bothered by my weight" when they have not had horse vetted so specifically look into any changes due to heavy rider, chiro out or massages done.

Or worse, someone that has to have chiro/massage therapy done on horse monthly.

And coming at this from being 229 lbs myself too...so not thin by any means.

When we are now looking at hospitals having to have extra wide wheelchairs, bathrooms having to put in toilets designed to not break under heavier people, ambulances having to put in heavy duty cots to carry patients as well as furniture makes having to make furniture for heavy people, office chairs too, it is foolish to think that our weight, if heavy riders, does not have a toll on our horse's well being.

As well as it does on us as riders.

Those of us who carry our weight mostly in our thighs/hips/lower legs are not having as good a contact as we would if we were thin. No way around that.

We sit on our pelvic bones differently, close our legs on our horse differently, and ride differently. The extra body fat ensures that.

And when we ride? We are not draped the length of the horse so that at least some of our weight is over the fore and hind legs either, it is on the span of the back only.

It is also hard on our saddles, particularly if we do not, as we widen, get a bigger seat. I see far too many heavy riders who have no cantle or pommel showing at all under their body....the only way you know they have a saddle under them is there are stirrups.

And the saddle not fitting? Means their mechanics are going to be off too.

As well as if someone is riding English of any style and posting the trot? You have an extremely hard time rising to that trot if you are heavy with the result that you are in your horse's mouth, using the reins to haul yourself out of the saddle.

And the horses are desperately unhappy too. Pinned ears, wringing tails, set mouth to keep from being yanked on, I see these horses and wonder how it is that their owners can not see what is so apparent to anyone else that sees them?

Horses are living creatures, capable of feeling pain, and like it or not, people need to be more insightful as to what they are doing to their horses. 

To pretend our weight does not have an impact is fooling ourselves.

And I find it sad when no one that is overweight is usually willing to consider it being a factor to their horse's well being.


----------



## Saddlebag

Most middle weight horses can accommodate the bars of a saddle being only so long. Usually a western saddle with a 17" seat is the max. I'm dealing in generalities. Saddles, both English and western are designed to position the riders weight over the area of a horse's back, I'll call the zone, most suited for carrying weight, not forward and not behind. When a rider is packing a lot of weighty fat both out front and behind, that area has been exceeded. This cannot be compared to a heavy muscular rider who's body fits in the zone. To be fair to the horse, find a horse that can take the size of saddle needed to keep all of your body within the zone.


----------



## callidorre

This study is still silly, but I felt like I HAD to comment with the new previous posts. Lol

I most definitely don't need to haul on the horse's reins and mouth to post. That's just poor riding, heavier or lighter rider, using reins to balance yourself. And I'm a heavier plus sized rider. Posting should not be difficult at all for someone who rides regularly, barring physical issues like bad knees. You're even moving with the motion of the horse. For posting- I'd be more concerned about a heavier rider sitting lightly and correctly in the saddle-not posting heavily and pushing off the back of the saddle. But, that holds true for a lighter weight rider too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Palomine

callidorre said:


> This study is still silly, but I felt like I HAD to comment with the new previous posts. Lol
> 
> I most definitely don't need to haul on the horse's reins and mouth to post. That's just poor riding, heavier or lighter rider, using reins to balance yourself. And I'm a heavier plus sized rider. Posting should not be difficult at all for someone who rides regularly, barring physical issues like bad knees. You're even moving with the motion of the horse. For posting- I'd be more concerned about a heavier rider sitting lightly and correctly in the saddle-not posting heavily and pushing off the back of the saddle. But, that holds true for a lighter weight rider too.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yes riders of greater weight CAN post correctly, but there are also riders who cannot...and it is due to their weight. Their stirrups are behind the girth because their toes are pointing down because their thighs/calves can't be gotten into position to have stirrups at correct length. 


They are tipped forwards from lower body, and using reins/mouth to lever themselves up out of saddle. And the horse tells on them too....but they don't want to see it.

And out of interest here, do you dance by any means? I have found that someone that dances well is much lighter on their seat as a rider, and able to lift themselves up to post. And they have a sense of timing too that is better.


----------



## Saddlebag

I just found this: perhaps it will help clarify.
While most healthy horses can easily carry a rider and saddle, they do have their limits. Now researchers have identified a threshold for when a rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably carry. 
The scientists base their findings on detailed measurements taken of eight horses that were ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of their body weight. The horses ranged in size from 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds). 

When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the horses showed relatively little indication of stress. It's when they were packing weights of 25% that physical signs changed markedly, and these became accentuated under 30% loads. 
The horses had noticeably faster breathing and higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider amounting to 25% or more of their body weight. A day after trotting and cantering with the heftier weights, the horses' muscles showed substantially greater soreness and tightness. Those horses that were least sore from the exercise had wider loins, the part of a horse's back located between their last rib and croup. 
Based on these results, the study's authors recommend that horses not be loaded with greater than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack and rider. 
Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute has concluded with the same weight guideline that the US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published in 1920. 
*Reference*


----------



## Golden Horse

Free not the Ohio 8 again, 8 pasture fit horses bought in and worked at all paces, with varying weights, does not a conclusive study make.

There is far more research needed, that's all
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag

But Golden that is how so many horses are ridden, so it's a good indicator.


----------



## callidorre

Nope. No dancing. I have a decent amount of muscle though and ride regularly. Actually my big bad habit is to have my legs too far forward rather than too far back. Which is interesting because I am top heavy. I can fix it though if I see it in pictures or get told by someone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## pinkbow

Horses has been ridden for centuries by people of all sizes. I think it's fine..


----------

