# Can a 15.1 hh, 1100 lb quarter horse carry a 300 lb man for a short 1 hr trail ride?



## churumbeque

shouldn't be a problem as long as he doesn't sit like a blob and can ride balanced.


----------



## NoTeLikeMe

Thats what i figured. Thanks!


----------



## Ray MacDonald

It also depends if the horse is very fit.


----------



## Celeste

I bought a really lightweight cheap wintec western saddle just for this type of purpose. At least that is one less heavy thing for the horse to carry.


----------



## callidorre

If the horse is in shape, has good conformation for carrying weight, and no pre-existing physical issues (I'm thinking no with the regular 250 lb rider), it shouldn't be a problem. My 15.3 quarter horse carries me around just fine, and I'm in that range. A nice, well-fitting lightweight saddle is a good plus. And ditto what churumbeque said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Depends on the horse. My 15'3 1350 lb horse was very unhappy carrying my 220lb ex boyfriend and he was a pretty decent rider. I'd try a short ride first and see how your horse is acting before and after.


----------



## Palomine

With saddle this is about 30% of horses weight or better.

I'm sorry but no matter how well someone rides, they are still sitting in a very small space on an area that is not supported directly underneath it.

Be different matter if draped from ears to tail, but they aren't.

To me, this is asking for trouble. And also would not be thrilled about woman who rides already.

Like it or not, weight matters. People can argue all the want about being balanced, or not, bottom line is someone that is heavy is hard on furniture, toilets, floors, beds, so why would it be okay on a living creature?


----------



## Joe4d

Palomine said:


> With saddle this is about 30% of horses weight or better.
> 
> I'm sorry but no matter how well someone rides, they are still sitting in a very small space on an area that is not supported directly underneath it.
> 
> Be different matter if draped from ears to tail, but they aren't.
> 
> To me, this is asking for trouble. And also would not be thrilled about woman who rides already.
> 
> Like it or not, weight matters. People can argue all the want about being balanced, or not, bottom line is someone that is heavy is hard on furniture, toilets, floors, beds, so why would it be okay on a living creature?


and you are basing that little tidbit on what fairy tale ?
Based on ACTUAL scientific studies and historical data, confirmation and condition have way more to do with it than an arbitrary percent plucked out of Lala land.


----------



## Golden Horse

Palomine said:


> Like it or not, weight matters. People can argue all the want about being balanced, or not, bottom line is someone that is heavy is hard on furniture, toilets, floors, beds, so why would it be okay on a living creature?


I have to ask as politely as possible what is your beef with us fat people?

I totally respect your views on larger people riding, and yes at 30% caution should be used.

What gets me is you constant assertion, every time this is mentioned, about the affect of heavy people being hard on furniture toilets and beds, I mean get real. 

OK, stopping there because I cannot phrase what i want to say in any polite manner at all. If you have such a thing about large people you had best stay away from us, we may fall on you and squash you.

I really don't know if your horse would be OK or not, the thing to do is ask him, as in try it and see. It sounds way at the top end of what he should be carrying, and I'm sure you don't want to damage him, so take it easy, and if your horse shows any distress then you need to speak for him.


----------



## callidorre

I really don't generally get involved in a fat debate-really they amuse me more than anything, sometimes annoy me, but since I posted before anything came up.... I've owned my horse for 5 years now. I've been in the same general 30ish pound range. I ride him multiple times a week all year long. 3-5 hour trail rides a few times a month from march to december. Started out western (lightweight saddle) for 2 years with him and then switched to english in 2010. He rides the same for me as he does with people much lighter than me, aside from, in the past, trying little things with new riders to see what he could get away with (going in directions he wants to-that sort of thing). He's never offered a buck for me or anyone else. His movement on the ground and under saddle looks better than ever this year after I moved him and made some changes in his life. When exactly am I supposed to see this catastrophic breakdown and pain and suffering? Lol. Do I want to weigh less and (more importantly to me) gain more fitness? Of course, but I'm not going to stop riding when my horse is just fine and is living a great, well-cared for life. Riding gives me motivation to go out and exercise more for my horse and i's continued improvements.

You're getting a lot of good advice OP. It's all really a horse to horse case and testing it out carefully is going to be your answer.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gottatrot

The saddle is a huge deal. If you are heavier and riding, then you must be very critical of your saddle's fit and how it distributes weight over your horse's back. Especially in larger seat sizes, there is a tendency to put the weight too far back. I recommend taking the saddle off and taking a hard look at your horse's back. If you see any signs of muscle atrophy or white hairs there is an issue.








I've seen a horse who was so good natured he kept going out for rides with a hematoma on his back under the saddle.


----------



## Back2Horseback

Regarding the above statement about saddle fit, (and I certainly do not intend to get into an "overweight riders are bad/people disliking overweight riders are no good" argument), because I can sense that I will be the one to get angry, and that-getting angry-is something I try to avoid at all costs.

I feel saddle fit is SO important. The saddle acts as the lifting and supporting/weight distribution device, moving the rider's weight off of the spine in a suspension bridge type of fashion and ensuring that no one part of the horse is carrying the large or main percentage of the rider's total weight. Balance and ability to move WITH the horse is so important as well! If you cannot move your body in tandum with the animal's movement, you are fighting it, and with a lot of weight! 

Considering the sort of tremendous care, attention to need (horse's need) and healthfulness I've seen in the horses owned by one of my closest "horsey" acquaintences (she is in the upper 200# range, and is close to 6ft tall!)--I simply do not buy into the "larger riders are irresponsible--on ANY front)...mind you, she _*generally*_ rides large draft/warmblood mixes to ABSOLUTELY ENSURE an approp wt ratio... 

This being said, her first/complete HEART horse, whom her mother bought for her at age three (when the horse was 19) was an Appy, not an overly large appy, probably 16hh, and this horse babysat my friend and taught her EVERYTHING as she grew as a rider and as a person! 

Very sadly, the horse was euthenized just a few months ago, at age 32 because of a cancerous tumor, and never had a lame day in her life, not to mention that when the chiro came out every month to work on all this girl's mom's FIFTY-SIX horses--about half are owned by mom and mom's two daughters, the other half are boarder's horses, but they all are ridden under the head trainer and full owner of this stable-- my beloved trainer--the ONE horse which _they never found anything "major" out of place on_ was my friend's mare...(this is an ex-show/ex-breeding barn which went from being VERY high profile and profitable showing/breeding outfit, to merely a FUN, friendly, and wonderful place for families to take lessons, learn horsemanship, and do so in impeccable, beautiful surroundings!)...

The Appy's owner (the little 3 year old who's mom bought her this mare as her first horse!) is, as I described above, presently 16, and she continued riding and showing this mare (and WINNING) long after the mare was completely blind in both eyes (even though no one at the shows had a clue, including the judges!), truly had NO "health problems", not one, related to the fact that her tiny three-year old rider happened to grow over the subsequent 13 years into a much larger (taller and heavier) older teen rider...she grew and through riding this horse AS she grew, conditioned the mare to her size and thus there was never a problem...Bottom line, however, was that they ensured that tack which fit both horse and rider exceptionally well was never scrimped upon. 

This girl's mother, my trainer, knew that saddles had to fit perfectly, and made sure they did, thus, this horse and her rider both benefitted from diligence in the form of all of the horse's care. None of this diligence had squat to do with the rider happening to grow into a large-sized person. She is an AMAZING rider. She rides English, Western, jumps, trains anything that moves, and still takes three lessons a week, despite growing up with a renound trainer for a mother!  My bias is totally such that size, while something that must be considered in every rider, not just the "heavyset" rider(!), can be made into a "HUGE DEAL" IF...you choose to be a biased, "heavy-hater"....OR, it can simply be one of those millions of things that we, as horse people, must take into consideration when choosing everything we must do, wear, buy, train for, etc...when riding every day, and that is that. No biggie...so to speak! :wink: 

and have seen some of the most un-concerned (re:anything about their horse's comfort) in the behavior of some of the tiny little girls who, while around my height (5'1") and about 30lbs less than I (I'm right at 145lbs), only care about THEIR needs...Forever riding in a TomThumb bit, "The horse is TOO STRONG over fences and I'm TOO SMALL to hold him back" and "I know the brand new super-duper expensive, non-synthetic, leather saddle I just bought has not yet been broken in and thus cut into my horse's shoulder, but, I PAID $2,500 FOR IT! He can live with a little cut until it breaks in before my next SHOW!"

While ^ this may be a common way of thinking in the big-time-show-person-world, I simply cannot imagine feeling this way. It's funny. I don't know if larger riders, simply because many have had to endure some degree of emtional pain at some/various points in life, due to being larger sized, tend to be much more empathetic (a generalization, but one I've seen time and again nonetheless), I feel they will be the first to step up to care for both the emotional and physical needs of their horses and their friends. This is always so so very appreciated by me. And I'm not saying little riders aren't empathetic and don't make wonderful horsepeople and friends! I guess, I just don't get where that ANGER towards large sized riders comes from? Do littler people believe that heavy riders should not be allowed the same priveledges they have when it comes to horsemanship? Is this BASED on anything REAL? As stated, I've seen nothing I wouldn't want to emulate out of the heavier-set riders I've known. Unfortunately, I have seen at least four MAJOR things I would NEVER emulate from my "lightweight" rider-barn-mates...

Okay, don't know if that was even WORTH writing, and if it contributed anything at all, but I felt I needed to jump in with some positive stuff as well as some tack related stuff, surrounded by lots of other stuff (As most of my writing is...again, standard "SORRY GUYS!" I am trying to improve!)...

Best to all! :wink:  :wink:


----------



## gottatrot

I will add an addendum to my earlier post:

If you are a lighter rider, you need to be very critical of your saddle fit. I recommend taking your saddle off and taking a hard look at your horse's back...etc.

In other words, this is for every rider. Two of my friends are heavy and both choose horses that are capable of carrying their weight and also are very careful about their saddle fit. Both are careful about pushing a horse too far for their conditioning and are conscientious riders in every way. Neither one has back issues or lameness issues with their horse. Another friend is in the under 200 lb range and is very slack about deciding which saddle to put on her horse. Her horses have back issues frequently.


----------



## Clava

It would not be acceptable for any of my horses if they were that size and weight. Just because a horse can doesn't mean we should make it.


----------



## Saddlebag

Often what keeps a saddle from causing serious harm is that the horse's back is continually moving. The worst thing anyone can do is use the horse as a chair while chatting. Moving at various gaits offers the horse some relief.


----------



## Back2Horseback

Saddlebag said:


> Often what keeps a saddle from causing serious harm is that the horse's back is continually moving. The worst thing anyone can do is use the horse as a chair while chatting. Moving at various gaits offers the horse some relief.


Very interesting point you've brought up! And while that isn't something I've ever done (not owning one's own horse, one rarely gets to do anything outside of lessons, at least in my particular situation!) it is nonetheless a very worthwhile issue to be aware of, IMO!


----------



## bsms

FWIW: When the weight increases, horses do things to make it easier on them. They take smaller steps, and have their feet in contact with the ground a greater percentage of the time. I've lost the link to the study, but they do what humans do when carrying a heavy backpack - they adjust how they move.

I've got a 600-700 lb mustang that I've ridden at times. With saddle, I'm at about 32% of his weight. He carries me fine and doesn't act sore, but I can feel how he adjusts his movement to handle the weight.

Conformation is also a player, not just the horse's size:

http://www.distanceriding.org/php/articles/health/Function.pdf

If your goal is to win athletic horse competitions, then being light is very important - like with jockeys. But for walking, trotting and limited galloping, horses can handle well over 30% - IF they have the right conformation, IF the saddle fits, IF the rider has OK balance, etc. We ended up needing to buy our little mustang his own saddle, because his back is shaped differently from our other horses.

Our little mustang with our 4'11" daughter-in-law and a too big saddle (replaced after this picture). Short back, thick legs, broad loins...he can carry me fine for a trail ride. It would be grossly unfair for me to ask him to race, or jump, or run barrels with me on his back:








​


----------



## Golden Horse

Clava said:


> Just because a horse can doesn't mean we should make it.


Where do you draw the line with that statement though?

Depending on your own ouch point we can say that about riding two year olds, racing TB's flat out etc etc.

Obviously there is a point where someone is too heavy, that is obvious, but it is also obvious that the equation is different for different horses.

The following statement isn't a justification of heavy riders, but merely me thinking out loud.

The concussive force on a horses joints, and wear and tear on their soft tissues, what is the potential damage from carrying 300 pounds for an hour at a steady walk, compared to carrying 150 pounds for 10 minutes at a hand gallop jumping several large and fixed fences? Just because a horse can doesn't mean we should make it.....???

Everything we do with our horses is unnatural, potentially harmful, and yes we need to look after their well being, but it is not as simple as saying 20% is their maximum load.


----------



## bsms

I know of no study that shows 20% is the maximum load for a conditioned horse. I know of 1 study that indicates 20% is the max for an out of shape horse, if you don't want the horse to feel any fatigue afterward - IOW, if you want to KEEP your horse out of shape!

But I try to ride our horses enough that they have some conditioning, and I don't care if they are a little sore afterward. After all, I'm struggling to get back to jogging after a 4 year break (thank you Mia, for the back injury!) - and I'm pretty sore from yesterday's jog. Yet I know long term that I will get in better shape, and be able to do easily what I struggled with yesterday.

20% would mean I would never ride my 900 lb mare, who seems to enjoy going out with me (23% with saddle) on a ride. And my 650-ish gelding would greatly prefer to carry my 170 lb son (about 29% with saddle) than to be left behind...and I've honestly never seen him show any signs of soreness or discomfort. But our trail rides are at a walk or trot, and rarely go over 2 hours.

People need to get past numbers and look at the total situation.


----------



## Saddlebag

It's not just about weight but weight distribution. A 300lb man will likely have a substantial belly on him which puts too much weight on the front of the saddle. With women they often pack a lot out behind so there is additional weight on the rear of the saddle. In both cases the weight isn't evenly distributed on the horse's back. With the extra weight on the front of the bars there's a good chance the saddle will jam into the edge of the scapula which then may cause damage and scarring to the underlying tissues. Too much at the back and that's an invitation to loin problems and the horse either refuses to be saddled or may start bucking because he hurts. These things may not show up on the ride but may within a few days as the tissues swell.


----------



## bsms

Here we go:_"Increasing the weight a horse carries also increases the ground reaction forces--the amount of energy that "pushes back" on the sole of the foot when it strikes the ground--that each limb withstands with each stride. "When you add weight when a horse is standing, the force of the weight is divided through all four limbs," Wickler says. "But as he gallops, not only do the forces go up, but also at different times throughout the strides all of the weight must be supported on some limbs individually." _ 

_To find out how horses compensate for these changing forces, seven horses--four Arabians, two Thoroughbreds and one Quarter Horse--were trotted at a range of speeds across a force-measuring plate both on the level and at a 10 percent incline. Normal (vertical) and parallel (horizontal) forces as well as each foot's time of contact on the plate were recorded on the fore- and hind limbs; each horse was also videotaped so that stride time could be measured.

_ _ Because a trotting horse looks like he is using his diagonal feet in perfect tandem, it might seem as if the reaction forces would be evenly distributed across the two legs that support him at each phase of the stride. But in fact, there are significant differences in the amount of forces borne by the front and rear legs. On a level surface the forelimbs consistently supported 57 percent of the forces while the hind limbs supported 43 percent. Going uphill, this pattern of distribution shifts, with 52 percent supported by the forelimbs while the hind limbs took on 48 percent. Time of contact also varied. At higher speeds, the two feet were on the ground about the same amount of time, but at slower speeds, the hind limbs tended to spend less time on the ground--an observation that had never been made before in quadrupeds, according to Wickler. For the front limbs, time of contact didn't change significantly whether on the level or on the incline, but the hind limbs tended to be in contact with the ground longer when going uphill...

...Carrying a load caused the horses to leave their feet on the ground an average of 7.7 percent longer than they did while trotting unburdened. On the level, the addition of a load caused the swing phase of the stride to become 3 percent shorter, but going uphill this phase of stride lasted 6 percent longer. In short, explains Wickler, carrying a load causes a horse to shorten his stride, leave his feet on the ground longer and increase the distance his body travels (the "step length") with each stride. All of these gait adjustments work together to reduce the forces placed on the legs with each step. "Forces are damaging," says Wickler, "so keeping the foot on the ground reduces peak forces and reduces that potential for injury." 
_​How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry?


----------



## gottatrot

The walk can actually be harder on a horse's back than other gaits. It is almost always preferable to a heavy, novice rider bouncing up and slamming down on a horse's back at a faster gait, but someone sitting like a sack of potatoes for an hour or more can be very hard on a horse's back. When there is no change in posture or weight distribution, there is compression to one area under the saddle and decreased circulation.

Many riders sit down heavily on their horse and move very little at the walk. Especially with an experienced rider, while they may shift their weight around during extended walking, there is more relief for the horse when the rider rises off the back regularly. If your saddle does not fit ideally, you will find that a horse is more sore after a long, slow ride than after a long, faster one.


----------



## bsms

I disagree that a fat guy will carry more weight to the front of a saddle. Fat guys, like skinny guys, sit balanced for their total weight and body build. There is also no one weight bearing point in a saddle. The thighs can carry a lot of the weight, or not - depending on how someone rides. Does the guy lean forward a bit, or lean back, or stay straight up and down? Does his back flex to move with the horse, or is he a sack of potatoes?

When my small (<100 lbs) DIL started riding, her bouncing visibly irritated the horses more than my 180 lbs did.

There are also a lot of different ways to distribute weight in a saddle, and how the saddle handles the weight varies. I generally recommend a western saddle for heavier riders, but our Abetta western saddle actually has about the same size tree as my Bates AP saddle. Just about everyone who sits in my Aussie-style saddle sits it differently than our Circle Y.


----------



## Back2Horseback

This has turned from an interesting question (thank you, OP!) into a fascinating discussion. I know we've had many similar on HF, however, I like the information and viewpoints being presented here today...

**BSMS, just wanted to add that your D-I-L is absolutely adorable on your equally absolutely adorable mustang! I don't believe I realized you HAD such a mustang! I knew about Mia, of course, and about your Appy, but cannot recall hearing of a third. He is simply too cute for words!


----------



## Golden Horse

Saddlebag said:


> It's not just about weight but weight distribution. A 300lb man will likely have a substantial belly on him which puts too much weight on the front of the saddle.


That is quite an assumption! My son is 6' 4" and he is nearly 300 pounds, but his weight is very evenly distributed, being as he lifts weights and works out, he has bulky muscles, and yes, a little paunch, but certainly not a lot.

OK, I was going to start another thread with a couple of questions, but now this has surface again...

I was looking at some sale ads yesterday, which led me to this video.






Does carrying 2 'normal' weight men cause more or less strain than one rider who equals the combined weight of the two.?

Also recently I have been looking at videos of a very out of shape rider doing a clinic on her horse. Technically she MAY be at 20% or under, her horse appears to carry her with ease, but she is shorter, and quite fat, therefore her body shape gives her issues as a rider. I wonder if her horse would be a lot happier if she was the same weight but a foot taller, and a bit fitter so she wasn't pulling herself up by the reins to rise. It has led me to ask if weight is the main issue, or fitness?

Saddle, with a heavier rider, but would a horse actually be happier with more weight, as in using a western saddle, rather than an English saddle, given that both are well fitting?


----------



## Clava

Golden Horse said:


> Where do you draw the line with that statement though?
> 
> Depending on your own ouch point we can say that about riding two year olds, racing TB's flat out etc etc.
> 
> Obviously there is a point where someone is too heavy, that is obvious, but it is also obvious that the equation is different for different horses.
> 
> The following statement isn't a justification of heavy riders, but merely me thinking out loud.
> 
> The concussive force on a horses joints, and wear and tear on their soft tissues, what is the potential damage from carrying 300 pounds for an hour at a steady walk, compared to carrying 150 pounds for 10 minutes at a hand gallop jumping several large and fixed fences? Just because a horse can doesn't mean we should make it.....???
> 
> Everything we do with our horses is unnatural, potentially harmful, and yes we need to look after their well being, but it is not as simple as saying 20% is their maximum load.


 
I draw the line where I feel uncomfortable with seeing that weight put on to a horse's back. 21stone on a horses back is ALOT of weight and most 15.1 and 1100lb horses will struggle. If I saw a horse struggling at a gallop over fences with a light rider then I would disagree with that too ( not to mention backing at 2yr) and we shouldn't make them. 20% isn't a rule, it is a guide line, but it is the top end that I would only consider going over if the horse's conformation was particularly good for weight carrying. Basically don't make the horses struggle, get a bigger stronger horse or a lighter rider.


----------



## bsms

Clava said:


> ...Basically don't make the horses struggle, get a bigger stronger horse or a lighter rider.


A lot of us have had trouble with getting a lighter rider...:?

And with my own horses, riding on the flat, I haven't seen any sign of struggle until pushing 30%. At about 30%, they very noticeably change how they move and balance. With little Cowboy, riding him at 32%, it is mostly noticeable in sharp turns. In a straight line, he'll cheerfully gallop with me and not even breath hard afterward.

With Lilly (since sold), when she was green broke, she had to learn how to carry my 210 lbs (including saddle) on her 800 lb body - 26%. It was noticeable when doing turns at a trot. However, after 3-4 rides, she figured it out and seemed to have no more problem with my weight.

Like most recreational riders, I don't spend 12 hour days in the saddle. But a lot of 200+ lb cowboys, using 40 lb saddles, would be in trouble if they needed to keep their weight at 20%. Trooper is an ex-ranch horse. He weighs <850 on a fat day, and wasn't fat on the ranch - yet he carried 200+ lb men with a 40 lb saddle for 10+ hour days in the mountains. And he is quite sound...although he also has the short Arabian back. However, he hated cutting cattle, which may have been because he didn't like working cattle, or it may have just been too hard of a job for a horse carrying 30% or more of his weight already.

BTW - why is 20% the top end that you would only carefully consider exceeding? What is your rationale?


----------



## Back2Horseback

Excellent comments/questions G H! Personally, and this may simply be a bias or something I picked up in lessons as a kid as a, "Never do THIS!", circumstance, as I really do not know if it is inherently BAD, just SEEMS WRONG, or perhaps I've developed my dislike someplace else...however, I really dislike seeing anyone riding "doubles" horseback. CERTAINLY TWO GROWN MEN, on what I would consider to be a MUCH TOO SMALL/delicate framed/delicate boned horse/pony, ESPECIALLY ON PAVEMENT, and not under any sort of "dire circumstances" (two riders go out on two horses, one horse is injured, and both riders must return for safety reasons to bring help to the injured horse)...in said scenario, I would overlook it, AS WOULD I overlook two ten year old boys or girls riding their full-sized horse double, bareback, at a walk, slowly, around on a grassy area for a few minutes, IF said horse was not afraid and kids were being safe and getting a laugh/having some MELLOW fun...

I, too, just CRINGE anytime I see things like the example you posted, G H. I can't answer your (great!) questions, but can make some statements! I do agree that it is rather judgmental for whichever poster said such to assume that because someone is "overweight", that they A) are carrying their weight as described, with a belly or a big butt, & B) Athletic ability plays a HUGE ROLE, IMO. I would be considered overweight by some, at 5'1" & 145 #. I do have some "flab", but certainly not so much as to be unbalanced, as my weight is very evenly distributed...I also am VERY MUSCULAR just naturally...my calves are huge rocks of muscle, as are my thighs, and I have a "butt" on me, however, it is one part of me which is literally hard as a rock and all, well "behind me", without jiggle or any "saddlebags"... 

Anyhow, when I first started riding again, the relatively moderate at most amount of flab I did have did cause an unbalanced situation to go from bad to worse. However, as I got into riding shape, the flab got "less flabby", & quickly (!) & my balance issues, when they occurred, were in no way weight related, but were usually advance in effort/required ability related...and I'd catch up within a month or so each time the work got harder.

Anyway, back to the You Tube video; the rear-most male is sitting with his full weight on the horses kidneys, and the saddle makes the position awful...just DON'T LIKE IT. PERIOD!

Interested to read others' responses!


----------



## nvr2many

Subbing......... some really good points here,  and I agree with whomever stated fitness as being a biggie. That would make a big difference as far as weight. Not only the horse's fitness, but the rider's as well.


----------



## tinyliny

bsms said:


> I disagree that a fat guy will carry more weight to the front of a saddle. Fat guys, like skinny guys, sit balanced for their total weight and body build. There is also no one weight bearing point in a saddle. The thighs can carry a lot of the weight, or not - depending on how someone rides. Does the guy lean forward a bit, or lean back, or stay straight up and down? Does his back flex to move with the horse, or is he a sack of potatoes?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Of course you are right. if you have a big belly, you will lean back to balance yourself, thus keeping the center of your mass over your center of gravity. otherwise, a pregnant woman would topple over forward, right? This is physics.
> 
> This question of whether to allow your boyfriend to ride your 'weight seasoned" horse is really up to you. It's certain that your horse CAN carry that weight. That fact that you are concerned about it means to me that you have some doubts about the wisdom of letting him ride your hrose. it's your horse, and in your care. you know what's right for it.
> 
> If it were mine, I would probably say no. The woman who is riding, in my opinion, is at about the upper edge of what I would ask a hrose of that size to carry. If you wanted to let your Boyfriend get on for 5 minutes to feel what it's like, that's different. Again, it's personal . I would opt for no. (and btw, I am a large woman at 200lbs).
> 
> having a concern for the horse carrying a heavy person is not being a "fat-hater".


----------



## Clava

bsms said:


> A lot of us have had trouble with getting a lighter rider...:?
> 
> And with my own horses, riding on the flat, I haven't seen any sign of struggle until pushing 30%. At about 30%, they very noticeably change how they move and balance. With little Cowboy, riding him at 32%, it is mostly noticeable in sharp turns. In a straight line, he'll cheerfully gallop with me and not even breath hard afterward.
> 
> With Lilly (since sold), when she was green broke, she had to learn how to carry my 210 lbs (including saddle) on her 800 lb body - 26%. It was noticeable when doing turns at a trot. However, after 3-4 rides, she figured it out and seemed to have no more problem with my weight.
> 
> Like most recreational riders, I don't spend 12 hour days in the saddle. But a lot of 200+ lb cowboys, using 40 lb saddles, would be in trouble if they needed to keep their weight at 20%. Trooper is an ex-ranch horse. He weighs <850 on a fat day, and wasn't fat on the ranch - yet he carried 200+ lb men with a 40 lb saddle for 10+ hour days in the mountains. And he is quite sound...although he also has the short Arabian back. However, he hated cutting cattle, which may have been because he didn't like working cattle, or it may have just been too hard of a job for a horse carrying 30% or more of his weight already.
> 
> BTW - why is 20% the top end that you would only carefully consider exceeding? What is your rationale?


If you see a horse struggling at 30% then you can bet the horse was uncomfortable way before that as horses are by nature prey animals which will go to great lengths to not appear vulnerable.

My rationale is based entirely upon how I have seen different horses respond to heavy riders and it is based upon personal experience (40 years of pony and horse ownership). I said very clearly that this would be unacceptable for *my *horses, I have seen horses backs damaged and believe that it is not something they should have to do. We have a responsibility to not cause them unnecessary discomfort for our pleasure. Carrying excess weight seems unnecessary to me.


----------



## bsms

By struggling, I don not mean staggering around. I mean taking shorter strides, to an extent that I can feel it. Or taking more care in the turns. At 32% of Cowboy's weight, he is more careful making a sharp turn than my bigger horses are. But I doubt anyone watching would notice.

I have never had a horse visibly struggle with a weight. And my biggest horse, the one I ride the vast majority of the time, carries 23-24% of her weight with me on her back. Trooper is at 25-26% every time I ride him, and I've never seen or felt any sign of difficulty with him, either. But since he has a lot of experience in his earlier life carrying 30-31% for 8-12 hour days, he probably thinks he has it easy here.

I guess the bottom line to me is that carrying 'excess weight' happens every time a rider gets on a horse, and that is how they earn their food. An 80 lb bale of bermuda hay currently runs me $18+. I don't feed them to stand around in a corral and look cute. Except for Cowboy. He get ridden about once a month, but earns his keep by playing the clown with the other horses.

The only scientific study I know of that suggests 20% is connected with reality is one where they had the horses in the study spend 4 months without being ridden. They then were worked for 45 minutes, with 14 days rest before the next 45 minutes of work._"Results of this study suggest that, for lighter riding horses, a total weight (rider, saddle, other equipment) not in excess of 20% of the horse's body weight is quite acceptable and does not stress the horse."_​Horses​ 
I agree. If your horse is totally out of shape, then keeping the rider's weight down to 20% should prevent any soreness after a 45 minute ride. But then, I don't believe in riding a horse 2 times a month, for 45 minutes a ride. I would consider a horse used like that to be badly out of shape, just as I am after 4 years without regular jogging. The answer for me, with my body, is to get in shape - not to spend the rest of my life walking because anything else is too much work!

If I was a small female, I might feel free to think otherwise. But if I lost 20 lbs, I'd look like a pro boxer, and it isn't likely to happen. Everyone has to make the decision for their own horses. I personally start worrying at 30%...


----------



## Clava

bsms said:


> B 30-31% for 8-12 hour days, he probably thinks he has it easy here.
> 
> I guess the bottom line to me is that carrying 'excess weight' happens every time a rider gets on a horse, and that is how they earn their food. An 80 lb bale of bermuda hay currently runs me $18+. I don't feed them to stand around in a corral and look cute. Except for Cowboy. He get ridden about once a month, but earns his keep by playing the clown with the other horses.
> ...


I don't expect mine to earn their food by having to carry weights that I feel are unreasonable and detrimental (which in excess of 20% can be) They provide me with the pleasure of riding them and their company and in return I keep them in the way I can. If I wanted to put heavier riders on my horses then I would buy much bigger, stronger, weight carrying types (Highlands, Clydesdales, HW cobs etc)


----------



## Saddlebag

Perhaps one should take a lungewhip and hold it from the riders shoulder, past the hip and to the heel and see how the weight is distributed. I taught one obese lady and her weight distribution scared me. A small stumble and I knew she'd be on the ground head first. Her legs stuck out to the side because of all the fat on the inside of her legs. There was no way she could touch her heels to the horse's sides. As she pointed out, when your butt is larger than your horse's, it's time to do something about it, and she did.


----------



## jamesqf

Golden Horse said:


> I have to ask as politely as possible what is your beef with us fat people?


It's really not about fat people, it's about how much weight a horse can safely carry. As for instance I'm 6 ft and a pretty muscular 200 lbs, so not fat by any reasonable standard. I'm still concerned that I might be too heavy for my horse to carry comfortably, and so I bought the lightest reasonably-priced saddle I could find, don't expect to fill saddlebags with 50+ lbs of camping gear, etc.


----------



## Golden Horse

jamesqf said:


> It's really not about fat people,


My question there was specifically directed at Palomine, who always jumps up on these threads.

To your point, absolutely, it is about total weight the horse has to carry BUT, as I said earlier, I have watched many videos of a short and yes fat lady riding, her horse does not appear to be the least concerned with the weight, but her body shape appears to be making her a very poor rider, which must put extra stress on her boy. 

I keep coming back to this being such a complicated subject, especially if you are not there to observe horse and rider working together. 

This lovely lady is 5' 6" and weighs 300 pounds










This lady also weighs 300 pounds










She is 5' 10" and obviously has a different body type. 

While it is about weight, it is also about fitness, and all sorts of other variables, and that is without thinking about the horse and all the 100's of variables that need to be considered on their side.


----------



## Celeste

Either of the ladies pictured above are going to present a challenge to a small horse.


----------



## Sahara

For a horse to carry any amount of weight correctly, it needs to learn to round its back up. That applies to an 80 lbs or 300 lbs rider. I would hope this is the concern that people have when riding. Is the horse using itself correctly? If not, the weight of the rider is a moot point, because damage is occurring regardless of rider weight.


----------



## Golden Horse

Celeste said:


> Either of the ladies pictured above are going to present a challenge to a small horse.


LOL, then we would have to define small! the question is though, in perception and in reality would they both be accepted and acceptable riding the appropriately sized horse?


----------



## Back2Horseback

I could not agree MORE with Sahara's point. Absolutely true. The rider also needs to know how to cue the horse to carry itself properly, and know how to be able to feel/otherwise tell when the horse is using his or her back muscles properly. 

It takes a fully mature horse a full year of five days of consistent training/week, working on learning to stretch down, build a topline, etc...and most horses are not in proper training to build a solid topline and "use themselves" properly. 

I'm having to learn NOW, in preparation for my "future horse", the preliminary aspects of properly maintaining an EXISTING topline on a horse who has been trained and is in good enough shape to carry itself properly. Now, if I wind up purchasing a horse without the knowledge which I barely have, or, without the already existing musculature, then I'll have to pay a trainer not only for lessons for myself, but to ensure I'm learning to do the work with "future horse" to keep him learning correctly AND be able to keep him in proper shape! 

This is all just for his proper body mechanics and longevity/health, as again, I have no interest in showing, or "riding under the watchful eye" of any judges... :0)


----------



## bsms

Back2Horseback said:


> ..It takes a fully mature horse a full year of five days of consistent training/week, working on learning to stretch down, build a topline, etc...and most horses are not in proper training to build a solid topline and "use themselves" properly...This is all just for his proper body mechanics and longevity/health, as again, I have no interest in showing, or "riding under the watchful eye" of any judges... :0)


It doesn't take a horse a year of intensive training to learn how to carry weight efficiently. A horse shouldn't hollow its back, which it might if its learning is done under a beginner who hammers its back, but horses don't need intensive training to learn to carry weight. I doubt anyone has ever set out to teach a horse to keep its feet on the ground slightly longer or to adjust its stride in other ways that allow it to handle weight. Dressage training is fine, but it isn't required for a horse to carry a rider well.

The OP's horse already regularly takes a 250 lb woman on a 2 hour trail ride. If her 300 lb boyfriend wants to try riding at a lazy walk for an hour, then make sure the saddle fits, have the BF use a mounting block, and then watch the horse (and rider). It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to figure out if the horse can handle the weight or not.

Here is a quote I like:

"*I very much doubt there is any scientific way to calculate (weight-carrying ability), or if anyone has done so," *says equine physiologist Karen Gellman, DVM, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences in the Section of Anatomy at Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine. "*Seems to me it is a pretty de facto situation. The animal votes with his feet if the load is unacceptable." *


----------



## Celeste

I once allowed a very heavy man (over 300 pounds) to get on one of my horses. She almost collapsed under the weight. He got right off, and that was the last time I tried something like that.


----------



## bsms

Lilly was a small Arabian mare we bought unbroke. However, the guy selling her wanted to show she was 'green broke', so he got on her (before we bought her). She was a slender Arabian, under 800 lbs. He weighed about 325 without a saddle - so around 45%, maybe more!

I wasn't there, but my wife said Lilly's eyes bulged out and she thought all 4 legs were going to give way. My wife bought her, brought her home, and the trainer took a look at her. She said Lilly's back was sore enough that we gave her a 30 day break before the trainer began the ground work to train her...

Poor Lilly - hard to imagine her with a 325 lb guy! This photo was taken about 6 months later, after Lilly was actually broke, with my youngest on her (maybe 85 lbs at the time):
















​


----------



## Celeste

Lilly looks very happy. I think that she would have found the term "broke" to have a dual meaning if she had continued on her previous course in life.


----------



## amberly

My horse is 13.5hh (not exactly sure what his weight is) but he once took a 300lb man for about six hours.

But it depends on the horse. Some breeds were bred to be stronger than others. Not every horse is built for that kind of work.


----------



## Back2Horseback

According to this video, as well as numerous other sources (though none so really duplicated as this), you will understand my earlier points about building proper musculature, topline, and a horse which can "most correctly" carry his rider and himself.

You'll want to watch the whole (2 minute) video, as the most important comments re: time are in the last 15 seconds.


----------



## bsms

I watched the whole video. It has nothing to do with longevity in a horse, or the ability to carry weight efficiently.

Dressage is an admirable sport, but collection is not needed for a horse to move properly or to carry weight. The US Cavalry studied it in the late 1800s, and concluded that dressage principles were counterproductive to the military use of a horse.

That doesn't make collection bad. I have no doubt that a collected horse is fun to ride. And some degree of collection can help with things like tight turns. The lower training scale of dressage has lots of value, since moving freely and with balance is always better than moving without those things.

However, a ballerina moves with incredible grace, but she isn't what I'd choose to haul a heavy load. And while I've asked in the past, I've yet to see a single scientific study that indicates collection and dressage improves a horse's useable lifespan or overall health.

I want to emphasize that I am not in any way saying teaching a horse dressage is bad. It can be wonderful, but it isn't a critical part of carrying a heavy rider, nor of keeping a horse ride-able into its old age. It is normal for a horse to carry more weight on the forehand. That is what their bodies are built to do. Just IMHO.

If anyone has any studies proving otherwise, I'd love to see them.


----------



## Golden Horse

AS to the way of going, it is a little obvious, just thinking of a horse as a bridge, then if they are going head up, back down in a hollow outline










Then they will not carry weight as comfortably as a horse who is going in a more rounded outline










So yes helping a horse travel in the correct way and making the back come up will help, but I disagree how long it will take.


----------



## bsms

I will agree, hollow is bad. It also takes little effort to get a horse to NOT be hollow-backed.


----------



## Golden Horse

I've debated a while before posting this, but here we go anyway, what 300 pounds actually looks like, posted purely for enlightenment and to give some 'substance' to the debate.

Here are 4 riders, all of them to my best knowledge are around the 300 pound mark. The vary from sat on this horse once and it felt bad, to love to ride this horse, to I ride and show and lastly I ride long trail rides often.

The horses range from 14.2hh Haflinger, 15hh Rocky Mountain, 15.2hh appy cross and 16hh QH.





































All the horses are fit and well, to the best of my knowledge, so yes there is a lot to the thoughts and equations.


----------



## Muppetgirl

BSMS, you said this:


It is normal for a horse to carry more weight on the forehand. That is what their bodies are built to do. Just IMHO.

And that ^^^ is true.......but not with a rider, that changes the whole theory......JMHO.


----------



## smguidotti

bsms said:


> I watched the whole video. It has nothing to do with longevity in a horse, or the ability to carry weight efficiently.


My friend owns a 25 year-old, 16.2 OTTB (built like thick WB) that she rescued about 4 years ago. He wasn't emaciated but had no muscle. It took about about 6 months before she could start riding him (s*he weighs about 300lbs and 5'10"*) because his back was sore. After a year of owning him she started taking him to low-level dressage shows (and placed). His back, however, despite the development in his top-line, began getting sore again (it was not a saddle fit issue either, she spent about $6000 on a custom fit saddle!). 

But anyway, IMO stretching can improve the comfort level of the horse and the longevity, but only to a certain point. I think my friend's horse's back began to give out to her weight. 

I'm not trying to make a point on either side of the debate, just throwing my 'experience' . . .


As bsms said, I think it just depends on what THE rider is planning on doing with their horse because in the end, our horses adjust to how WE ride...

I don't think my friend's horse could graduate on with the more advanced movements in dressage with my friend's weight. In a way her weight was hindering certain areas of muscle development. But she could take him on a long trail ride and be fine...


----------



## Back2Horseback

bsms said:


> I watched the whole video. It has nothing to do with longevity in a horse, or the ability to carry weight efficiently.


Actually, I disagree. To first clarify, while I ride with a primarily dressage trainer, I don't ride "dressage". I ride English, as in, in an English saddle. The concepts bring taught (albeit, briefly) in this video are taught in nearly all disciplines of riding today. The point I was focused upon was that if the horse has effective musculature, (just like the runner, the martial artist, etc...) he can use his body more safely and more productively, & likely, for a longer period of time, as he can user his muscles to protect his bones, ligaments, tendons...what muscles are intended, on one level, to do. I'm pretty sure this is an observable point. 

Folks may disagree regarding the length of time which it takes to get a horse to carry itself most effectively and build a very solid topline, but the overall point that HAVING SUCH makes the horse a more athletic creature isn't something I can see any reason to disagree about.

As well, muscular topline or no, a tiny horse cannot carry an enormous amount of weight safely or comfortably. This too, I see no point in debating. My points were essentially that a more athletic horse, trained to use his body properly, is going to have a generally easier time carrying any load comfortably....


----------



## Back2Horseback

Apologies for the double post (& the smartphone typos in my previous post!) but before I could be misunderstood, I wanted to say that I was not referring to 300#'s as "an enormous amount of weight", per se.

I was simply saying that ANY small, or weak, or malnourished, or improperly cared for (from feet to nutrition to lack of hydration to...) horse is not going to do well with any large amount of weight (& that includes packing around ITEMS, as well as humans!).

A smaller horse with minimal muscle or fitness, or one with any of the above issues to contend with is going to struggle with any act it is asked to comply with, and certainly, just like with human beings, as the task becomes more overwhelming (more speed, difficult weather, more weight, WHATEVER; that horse is going to struggle more than one which is better matched in every way to the task at hand!

Horses built to carry it were asked to cart around knights wearing full metal armor in the middle ages. It's POSSIBLE, it just has to be the right animal capable of doing the job!


----------



## Clava

Golden Horse said:


> I've debated a while before posting this, but here we go anyway, what 300 pounds actually looks like, posted purely for enlightenment and to give some 'substance' to the debate.
> 
> Here are 4 riders, all of them to my best knowledge are around the 300 pound mark. The vary from sat on this horse once and it felt bad, to love to ride this horse, to I ride and show and lastly I ride long trail rides often.
> 
> The horses range from 14.2hh Haflinger, 15hh Rocky Mountain, 15.2hh appy cross and 16hh QH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the horses are fit and well, to the best of my knowledge, so yes there is a lot to the thoughts and equations.


 
Yes, and all of them are overloading the horses, even the haflinger. That weight on their backs is IMO too much and not something we should subject horses of their szie and shape too. Get bigger horses or smaller riders.


----------



## callidorre

I've seen this list of horse and rider combos before. The immediate thing I see is people in too small saddles. Along with saddle fit for the horse, the saddle needs to fit the rider too. I'm not going to comment really on if I think those people should be on those horse because A- I've seen them and the little backstories before, and B- one picture doesn't really say much. I could put one picture up of my horse and I, and you could say he's very unhappy, and another totally the opposite. Although, I like the last rider the best, probably because I like that saddle placement and fit the best out of the group, and they are moving, rather than posing standing still.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sahara

Rounding up is the weight carrying posture of the horse. If the rider cannot ask the horse to round up, the spinal column will sag over time causing a myriad of domino effect injuries, shortening the longevity and hindering the serviceable soundness of the horse. 

This isn't collection, it isn't dressage. It is a basic riding principle. However, very few people concern themselves with this principle, unfortunately. 

Horses are made up of tendons, ligaments, muscles, and bones. It isn't rocket science. These tissues can only take so much strain before they start to break down. 

If you have a heavy rider that can support his/her own weight AND help the horse round up, that is infinitely more ideal than a heavy rider with dead weight that is simply a passenger. 

So, go out there and learn how to round-up your horse that is in suitable condition and have fun.


----------



## Golden Horse

Clava said:


> Yes, and all of them are overloading the horses, even the haflinger. That weight on their backs is IMO too much and not something we should subject horses of their szie and shape too. Get bigger horses or smaller riders.


What is strange about that one, you say even the Haflinger, well she is the one horse who was not happy with carrying a bigger person.The other 3 performed a lot better.


----------



## bsms

The four horses I've ridden enough to discuss intelligently max out at 900 lbs. My 180 lbs plus a 35 lb saddle gives the following percentages: 24, 25, 28, and 33. If Mia or Trooper have any trouble carrying me, they sure hide it well (24 & 25%). Lilly was very green broke when I rode her, but after 6-10 rides, she did fine...although I could sometimes feel her making adjustments for me when we did tight turns (28%). Cowboy can carry me, but he is adjusting his stride and particularly has to adjust in turns. At 33%, I'd say I'm too heavy for him for extended riding - but like a lot of ponies, he is structurally strong for his size. His legs are as big around as my larger horses, and he has a short back and broad loins for his height (13 hands). He shows no sign of strain when galloping with me, but we almost always use him as our third horse for trail rides - so I almost never ride him. Based on how he moves, I'd be concerned if I rode him regularly or long.

All of my horses are fairly slender. For western riders to reference, they use a 26 or 28" cinch, and I need a nylon latigo so I can loop it 3-4 times. For my Aussie-style saddle, I use a 30" girth, but I'll eventually replace it with a 28" - which is the next to smallest that DownUnder sells.

Based on that limited sample, I wouldn't worry too much at <25%. Above 25%, I'm going to want to think about it. After 30%. I'd want to watch carefully - can that specific horse, with his experience and conditioning and conformation, carry that specific rider? And WHY am I asking him to do so?

I think percentages give you a marker to say, "Whoa! Does this make sense?" Some may put that marker at 20%, which is fine. 

Ponies will have higher percentages, but many ponies are built well for carrying a higher percentage. Arabians have a reputation for carrying heavy loads, but mine are both slender. I'd bet a 220-230 lb rider could sore Mia or Trooper, if they were not experienced riders using good fitting saddles. 30% for Mia would be 270 lbs (235 rider + 35 lb saddle). I'm pretty sure my tall, slender prima donna mare would protest...and I honestly wouldn't ever ask it of her. She is my biggest horse, but also seems to have the most sensitive back. She also has a strong preference for men over women, and would probably try a lot harder for a 220 lb guy than a 220 lb woman. :?

A lot of trail riding places set a 250 lb limit on riders, and some set it at 200 lbs. I can understand that. I am certain there are horses who can carry a 300 lb person just fine, but there are not a huge number of them.


----------



## Clava

Golden Horse said:


> What is strange about that one, you say even the Haflinger, well she is the one horse who was not happy with carrying a bigger person.The other 3 performed a lot better.


Haflingers are well known for their weight carrying ability, hence my comment.


----------



## Back2Horseback

Sahara said:


> Rounding up is the weight carrying posture of the horse. If the rider cannot ask the horse to round up, the spinal column will sag over time causing a myriad of domino effect injuries, shortening the longevity and hindering the serviceable soundness of the horse.
> 
> This isn't collection, it isn't dressage. It is a basic riding principle. However, very few people concern themselves with this principle, unfortunately.
> 
> Horses are made up of tendons, ligaments, muscles, and bones. It isn't rocket science. These tissues can only take so much strain before they start to break down.
> 
> If you have a heavy rider that can support his/her own weight AND help the horse round up, that is infinitely more ideal than a heavy rider with dead weight that is simply a passenger.
> 
> So, go out there and learn how to round-up your horse that is in suitable condition and have fun.


^^^	My point, PRECISELY, Sahara. I certainly appreciate you better articulating it for me, for any who may have misunderstood!


----------



## Golden Horse

Clava said:


> Haflingers are well known for their weight carrying ability, hence my comment.


Yes I get that, but my comment is that she obviously didn't get the memo:lol:

Again could would and should, but at the end of the day the horse will give feed back if you listen to it.


----------



## PinkNumnah

I don't weigh that much but I am overweight. I would not ride horses as fine as being discussed here.

Also, Clava is not fattist. Infact, here we are riding together. I wouldn't ride any of her horses at the moment though.


----------



## bsms

A lot depends on degree. A hollowed out back is bad for a horse. However, if the rounding you are looking for requires 1-2 years of intensive training, then you are probably looking for a degree of rounding that isn't required for the efficient carrying of a rider.

I'm entirely willing to be proven wrong, but I've seen no studies that indicate a requirement for intensive training for a year or more to carry a heavy rider.

That doesn't make it wrong to train a horse like that. But, as an example, the video talked about the importance of having a horse on the bit (he says that is the first thing you have to do). He argues that modern horses normally break down after 4-5 years because horses don't lift their backs.

Sorry, but I know of a lot of horses in their 20s, being ridden regularly, who aren't ridden on the bit, and who have not had intensive training in lifting the back. It is a matter of degree. A hollowed out back is bad, and usually indicates a bad rider creating a defensive reaction by the horse. That doesn't mean the opposite end of the scale is a requirement. There is a happy middle...IMHO. But if anyone has actual scientific studies showing otherwise, I'd love to see them!


----------



## Clava

Golden Horse said:


> Yes I get that, but my comment is that she obviously didn't get the memo:lol:
> 
> Again could would and should, but at the end of the day the horse will give feed back if you listen to it.


 
My view is that her back and joints did get the memo, but she struggled on anyway. Horses try very hard to never give feed back.


----------



## Cat

Clava said:


> My view is that her back and joints did get the memo, but she struggled on anyway. Horses try very hard to never give feed back.


 
I think you missed what RM was saying. The Haflinger in question did not get the memo that "Haflingers are supposed to be good weight carriers." That horse in question DID give feedback that the weight was not being handled well.


----------



## Clava

Cat said:


> I think you missed what RM was saying. The Haflinger in question did not get the memo that "Haflingers are supposed to be good weight carriers." That horse in question DID give feedback that the weight was not being handled well.


I'm glad to hear that the haflinger did give feed back at that weight! Sorry for the confusion. But horses do try and hide it if they can. The haflinger has good bone (usually) , the other 3 do not look in anyway suitable to me for 300lbs on them.


----------



## maura

Okay, after a long time lurking in this part of the forum, I'm going to add my .02.

First, to the OP: 

I think your concern is well founded. But the best, if not the only way to evaluate the situation is to put BF on the horse for a few minutes and observe the horse. Mounting and the first few steps away from the mounting block are crucial. I have seen horses *clearly* indicate at the mounting block that they are struggling to handle weight. Let BF walk around for 15 minutes and watch the horse. Next day examine the horse for tenderness or soreness. If the horse tolerates the 15 minute walk and shows no signs of irration or struggling, I think the walking trail ride on flat ground would be fine. 

Now, some details about what informs my opinion -

I am a large rider - 5'7" and between 225 - 245 pounds. With tack, that's 240 - 260.

I have two horses - one, a 15.1 QH with good weight carrying confo. Broad back, short coupled, good shoulder, good hind end. He's about 1000 - 1050 #, so I'm right at 25%.

The other horse is a 14.2 classic foundation QH - he's built like a brick with legs. I refer to him as SEBUQH, Small Emergency Back Up QH. VERY broad back, very sturdy little guy, probably aobut 900 pounds, which puts me at 28%. A little concerning. 

BUT - when I was younger and thinner, I was a very experienced, competent professional rider and under the fat, my muscles and bones remember the previous skills. I am very well balanced, I can ride in two point for long distances, and I still have an educated following seat. Not that I could ride a big moving horse in medium or extended trot for long, but my seat stays soft and following in the downward transitions. Would all this be even better if I were thinner? Sure. Am I a less abusive rider than a thinner, unbalanced rider in a badly fitting saddle? Of course!

Here's how I ride my horses - I get on from a very tall mounting block and keep my weight out of the saddle until the horse moves off. I have a good saddle that fits both them and me. I mostly trail ride; if I want to do flat work, I ride in a large open pasture, avoiding small circles, sharp turns and abrupt transition. I warm up in two point and usually only canter and gallop in two point. They're lightly worked; nothing strenuous, no competions. The only things I jump any longer are logs in the path. 

My horses are perfectly calm and gentlemanly at the mounting block. (Tension and nervousness at mounting are SIGNS, pay attention!) The are relaxed, forward moving horses who seem to enjoy their work. The bigger horse does this cute thing when we come to an open section of trail where he squeals and roots at the reins, asking if we can please move on now. They are 13 and 12 and have never have an unsound day in the 4 and 5 years of my owning them. 

Most significant is that is you look at photos from when they first arrived and now, not only have their toplines not fallen, they have *improved.* I watch their toplines and backs like a hawk, looking for soreness, white hairs, atrophy and heat and haven't found anything yet.

So I'm pretty confident I am not damaging my horses. However, I don't take the 14.2 foundation guy away from home much, and I wouldn't have him as my primary ride. Why? Not because I think I'm hurting him, because I am fairly confident I'm not, but because I do not want to put up with the judgement and comments of others. 

Would I put a beginner rider or a bad rider of my size on either them? No, absolutely not, and certainly not on a regular basis. I did teach a friend about my size ONE beginner lesson on SEBUQH, but she mostly trotted in two point and had a few short attempts at learning to post. If she was serious about learning to ride, she'd have to have a more suitable school horse. 

Oh, and the furniture, beds and toilets in my house are all in excellent condition.


----------



## Golden Horse

Cat said:


> I think you missed what RM was saying. The Haflinger in question did not get the memo that "Haflingers are supposed to be good weight carriers." That horse in question DID give feedback that the weight was not being handled well.


Quite right Cat, and the rider listened to that feedback, sorry if I didn't make it clear, that was the point that I tried, and failed, to make. 

I don't think anyone accused Clava of being fattist, she has been very clear that she wouldn't let large people ride her horses, and that is fine. Clava is always straightforward and to the point here, but I never see her as fattist.


----------



## countrylove

Saddlebag said:


> Often what keeps a saddle from causing serious harm is that the horse's back is continually moving. The worst thing anyone can do is use the horse as a chair while chatting. Moving at various gaits offers the horse some relief.


Can you explain why/how just sitting on a horse is bad? Is this directed at heavy riders or all riders? I'm very curious because I am guilty of this lol I do it often and I move around a lot in the saddle(adhd... I don't move around rough just rearrange me weight a lot) and will walk in small circles or back up occasionally too. But I do sit around and chat with other people. None of the horses have ever acted sore afterwards either. So I'm very curious as to you opinion on this  I maybe changing that habit lol


In regards to riding double from another post: I think its crucial to teach a TRAIL horse to ride double. This is for emergency situations though. A strictly show only horse probably won't need to learn this skill but any horse who is going to be on the trail should know and accept 2 riders. I would hate to be in the middle of the forest, bleeding to death or broken bones and we can't ride the only horse back because it hasn't been taught how to accept 2 riders.
As a matter of fact my bff broke her ankle when her horse spooked and bolted. Neighbors horse that I was riding wouldn't let us ride double. She rode of course and I walked 5 miles home. Another time with same bff, my gelding suddenly went lame about a mile out. We ponied him and rode double home. Neither of us could walk because we stupidly didn't have shoes on and the trail was rough with stickers, etc... (15 yrs old, went to the swimming hole 1/2 mile away, stupidly went down the creek another 1/2 mile, all while barefoot and in shorts and bikini tops, thank god we had bombproof as they come horses and we thought we were invincible, probably one of the dumbest thing I've done lol that was 10 yrs ago)

We (every trail rider I know) teaches this skill. We don't use it everyday or just because we can but it is a valuable skill to teach.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Back2Horseback

^	EXACTLY why I commented that it is something that should only be done (IMO) in situations of NEED, not that which was demonstrated in the video GH posted to make, I believe, a similar point (or one re: weight carrying).

Just wanted to ensure that my comments were not understood incorrectly. You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IMO, that in trail riding, horses should be comfortable if ever required to "double up" with two riders in emergencies! Excellent point to re-emphasize.

Soooo many great statements, information provision, and opinions here. I love HF! :0)


----------



## Clava

Back2Horseback said:


> You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IMO, that in trail riding, horses should be comfortable if ever required to "double up" with two riders in emergencies! Excellent point to re-emphasize.
> 
> Soooo many great statements, information provision, and opinions here. I love HF! :0)


I think in the Uk this is not the case, we would never attempt to get home injured but call for an air ambulance / helicopter or similar, but we are only a tiny island.


----------



## gottatrot

The horse to rider weight ratio should not be based on the weight the horse is now, but the horse's healthy weight. I have literally seen people feeding up their horses because they think they are too heavy for a 1,000 lb horse, but a 1,200 lb. horse could carry them. This is one danger of a set ratio like 25%. This is completely illogical to me, since a horse carrying too much weight on his frame is worse off than one carrying an appropriate amount of weight with a heavier rider. Yet the rider feels they can say, "Oh no, I'm not too heavy for him. He weighs 1,200 lbs."

Making your horse that is supposed to weigh 900 lbs into a 1,000 lb horse does not change the weight ratio that horse can carry. In fact, it probably decreases it.


----------



## Golden Horse

countrylove said:


> Can you explain why/how just sitting on a horse is bad?


:hide: A clear example for you, from the safety of under this chair.

I took my beautiful Willow to my new trainer for a short assessment ride. She was great while I mounted, twice, both from high block, wonderfully free and moving well at both walk and short trot, but wouldn't stand still when I went to dismount. Trainer explained that she was having trouble holding me while stood still, now obviously she was struggling at the walk as well, but could balance better on the move, think maybe of trying to stay still on a bike, as opposed to riding slow,then fast, gets easier with movement yes. (As an aside I have to lose 70 more pounds before I can ride her as I want, but she is so worth it.

Another example, the ever patient Mr G, when I was putting on weight he wouldn't stand still one day when I had him in the English saddle, but when I swapped to the Western he was perfectly comfortable, which is why I wonder if the extra weight of the Western saddle is worth it to make the horse more comfortable. Oh and at the time yes I was at under 20% of his weight, so not an issue totally of weight, but of saddle type and fit.


----------



## Saddlebag

Countrylove, it is those people, regardless of weight who sit on the horse like a bump on a log while chatting with someone else, or watching an event take place. Often the horse is made to stand still regardless of it's discomfort. Think of holding a bucket of water with your forearm and not being allowed to turn your wrist to relieve the pressure. It gets sore pretty quickly.


----------



## Muppetgirl

Wow....people feed their horses up to make them fit in the weight to horse size ratio? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard someone doing!


----------



## Golden Horse

Clava said:


> I think in the Uk this is not the case, we would never attempt to get home injured but call for an air ambulance / helicopter or similar, but we are only a tiny island.


LOL, you do have a different view when you live out here for a while, the term miles from anywhere is a little different over here.

Here is one we can all agree on though......there is a line and this crosses it:twisted:


----------



## Stan

My two pennys worth
I allowed my horse a clydesdale cross 16 + hands very strong horse to carry a large young lady 250 lbs + thats not a huge weight when taken with reference to the human race of today. Just have a look around at the real size of the human race we are obese, and most of us could do with dropping a few pounds.

Back to my horse and the rider. We let her sit and be lead around the paddock untill I was around when she mounted. At that point I took her father aside for a chat. Reason I took her father was the women believed because the horse was big and strong it could perform under any load, and had demonstrated that view when points were brought to there attention, closed minds.

I sat down with her father and as she mounted again showed him what was happening to my horse. Even though the horse had braced itself it still responded when she sat down in the saddle. I pointed out the damage that could be done to the horse and the result would be NO horse for me to ride.

They young lady never rode my horse again and I am still friends with her father.

Back to the horse and what it can carry. In my view confirmation of the horse means nothing. A very large full blood clyde could carry such a load and looking at a horse of that stature one would agree. However the horse is designed to go forward. Its body structure has not changed in a million years.

All the breading humans have done have not changed the skeletal structure of the horse and nature did not design it to carry weight on its back but did design it to go forward.

Look around and see the damage to horses that have been ridden too early in their life. Look around and have a look at the horse that has been jumped and galloped too early in its development. It needs to be 4 years plus before being subject to weight to allow the bones to fully form.

I use a saddle that has a basic design to spread the load and make it as comfortable as it can for my horse. How would you feel if one quarter of your weight was sitting on your back. Give it the test.

I still ride but the wellbeing of my horse is foremost and I try and stay as light as possible and with this thought in mind. How many of us have back problems and do they really ever get better or remain a weak point in our structure.

From its conception millions of years ago the horse has not changed and was not designed to carry weight on its back. It was designed by evolution to carry its own weight only, and has never changed, even after a few thousand years of being riden and human intervention with selective breding it has not changed. Evolution has not changed the horse to carry weight on its back.

Happy riding, because your horse lets you ride it, and if you hurt it, you have lost your horse, and you did it.


----------



## Golden Horse

Stan said:


> Back to the horse and what it can carry. In my view confirmation of the horse means nothing. A very large full blood clyde could carry such a load and looking at a horse of that stature one would agree. However the horse is designed to go forward. Its body structure has not changed in a million years.


I personally don't care if a horse has been confirmed or not, religion and riding don't mix, lets keep them separate. As to conformation, it means EVERYTHING. A horse may be designed to carry only it's own weight, so to ask it to do more it needs to be built for the task.

Equally man was designed only to carry his own weight, but in recent military conflicts squaddies have been carrying packs of up to 140 pounds when they have needed to. 



Stan said:


> All the breading humans have done have not changed the skeletal structure of the horse and nature did not design it to carry weight on its back but did design it to go forward.


But it made Findus very happy


----------



## AlexS

I would not be comfortable asking my 1100lb 15.1 TB to carry anything more than 200lbs. Even at a walk on a the trail. 

There's often a weight ratio debate here, which I don't generally tend to understand. If there is doubt, then it's likely that the horse might struggle. The pic below is an ideal horse for a larger rider. I do wish we could stop trying to squish larger people onto smaller horses. 




PinkNumnah said:


>


----------



## jamesqf

Clava said:


> I think in the Uk this is not the case, we would never attempt to get home injured but call for an air ambulance / helicopter or similar, but we are only a tiny island.


1) Here in the western US, about 90% of the places I ride (and hike, bike, etc) do not get a usable cell phone signal.

2) Would you seriously call an air ambulance for something like a sprained ankle?

3) As for carrying double, I don't normally ride with people who couldn't comfortably walk back to where we started (in case of one horse running away, or some minor injury). For a serious injury - where you'd have to ride double in order for one to hold a semi or unconscious person - I'd think you likely would do more harm trying to take the injured person back to the trailhead on horseback, than by stabilizing them where they are and sending (or going) for rescue.


----------



## Clava

jamesqf said:


> 1) Here in the western US, about 90% of the places I ride (and hike, bike, etc) do not get a usable cell phone signal.
> 
> 2) Would you seriously call an air ambulance for something like a sprained ankle?
> 
> 3) As for carrying double, I don't normally ride with people who couldn't comfortably walk back to where we started (in case of one horse running away, or some minor injury). For a serious injury - where you'd have to ride double in order for one to hold a semi or unconscious person - I'd think you likely would do more harm trying to take the injured person back to the trailhead on horseback, than by stabilizing them where they are and sending (or going) for rescue.


 
I was thinking of serious /disabling injuries. For a sprained ankle they can ride their own horse home, or we would get someone to drive close enough to collect the person, we wouldn't double up riders (far too dangerous on our busy roads).


----------



## Stan

Golden Horse said:


> I personally don't care if a horse has been confirmed or not, religion and riding don't mix, lets keep them separate. As to conformation, it means EVERYTHING. A horse may be designed to carry only it's own weight, so to ask it to do more it needs to be built for the task.
> 
> Equally man was designed only to carry his own weight, but in recent military conflicts squaddies have been carrying packs of up to 140 pounds when they have needed to.
> 
> 
> 
> But it made Findus very happy


 
Back to the service man that can carry a heavy load. When age sets in so does the results of abuse of the body. Many sports persons that build their bodies to take weight and phisical abuse have issues in later life. Knees give out, Hip jounts need replacing, back is weak or had to be fused in places and so on, brought about by making, or changing the body to perform at a level above its design.

I to have carried heavy loads in my life and 140 lbs on the back is not uncommon in stress situations and army training, but for short bursts only The service man when placed in the situation of having to run or defend himself drops the load. No service man can defend him/herself in combat effectivly carring that kind of load, Not a good reference to someone who has been there.

Spelling mistakes are my property please dont copy.:lol:


----------



## bsms

Stan said:


> ...In my view confirmation of the horse means nothing. A very large full blood clyde could carry such a load and looking at a horse of that stature one would agree. However the horse is designed to go forward. Its body structure has not changed in a million years.
> 
> All the breading humans have done have not changed the skeletal structure of the horse and nature did not design it to carry weight on its back but did design it to go forward...


We haven't bred any new bones, but we certainly have bred for a variety of characteristics that can help or hurt. Short backs, thick legs with plenty of bone, good feet, broad loins - from what I've read, those all help. 

While Mia remains a short-backed Arabian, she has a mild club foot, long legs and carries her 875-900 (vet estimate) on a 15.3 frame. She tends to look like a big tough girl, but she isn't as big as she looks. Add to it that she is a klutz, and a heavy rider with poor balance could definitely pull her off balance.

Cowboy is maybe 650, but he is 650 lbs of tank. Great feet. Legs as thick as Mia's. I'd guess his loins are as broad as hers, all on a 13 hand frame. Not sure where I copied this from, but I've got it on my computer:

"Conformation analyst Deb Bennett, PhD, of the Equine Studies Institute, notes that the primary requirement of a riding horse is to bear a rider's weight on the freespan of his back without strain, and that certain conformational qualities can make that easier for the animal. In her well-regarded book _Principles of Conformation Analysis_, she offers the following wish-list for weight-carrying ability: 


An excellent loin coupling--broad, short, smooth, and strong, yet flexible for coiling. The circumference about the loin and groin should be about the same as the heart-girth;
A short to medium-length back;
A neck set high on the shoulder, with a shallow vertebral curve at the base of the neck;
Moderately high withers, with a peak that lies well behind the horse's elbows;
A pelvis that constitutes at least 30% of the body length and slopes from 18-22 degrees; and
A total body weight of less than 1,450 pounds (658 kg)."
This picture of my 3 horses may help visualize how some horses can handle a higher percentage of weight than others:








​
Not the best I suppose, but compare body size and leg thickness and length between Mia in the front and Cowboy in the back. It seems obvious to me that Mia would have problems at a lower percentage of weight, although her overall size makes it OK for her to carry me. That's just IMHO, and someone good with conformation might be able to show me I'm wrong...


----------



## tinyliny

Stan said:


> Back to the service man that can carry a heavy load. When age sets in so does the results of abuse of the body. Many sports persons that build their bodies to take weight and phisical abuse have issues in later life. Knees give out, Hip jounts need replacing, back is weak or had to be fused in places and so on, brought about by making, or changing the body to perform at a level above its design.
> 
> I to have carried heavy loads in my life and 140 lbs on the back is not uncommon in stress situations and army training, but for short bursts only The service man when placed in the situation of having to run or defend himself drops the load. No service man can defend him/herself in combat effectivly carring that kind of load, Not a good reference to someone who has been there.
> 
> Spelling mistakes are my property please dont copy.:lol:


seriously off topic here, but this is a new machine being designed for possible military use; to carry very heavy loads over terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot manage, can be guided by one human handler.


----------



## Sahara

AlexS said:


> I would not be comfortable asking my 1100lb 15.1 TB to carry anything more than 200lbs. Even at a walk on a the trail.


And rightly so, as TBs are a racing breed, not a RIDING breed. :wink:


----------



## Celeste

Tiny, did you get that off of a Star Trek movie?


----------



## AlexS

Sahara said:


> And rightly so, as TBs are a racing breed, not a RIDING breed. :wink:


I'm 10.9% of his body weight, he's fine. :lol:

Edit, as I suck at math.


----------



## Sahara

He probably doesn't even notice you are up there, Alex!


----------



## AlexS

Sahara said:


> He probably doesn't even notice you are up there, Alex!


Laugh, that 100% depends on how he behaves. :twisted:


----------



## NBEventer

Golden Horse said:


> LOL, you do have a different view when you live out here for a while, the term miles from anywhere is a little different over here.
> 
> Here is one we can all agree on though......there is a line and this crosses it:twisted:
> 
> 2 girls miniature pony ride - YouTube


That persons entire youtube channel is disgusting. Its a fetish channel, for animal abuse. I reported the entire channel. I feel sick.


----------



## Stan

tinyliny said:


> seriously off topic here, but this is a new machine being designed for possible military use; to carry very heavy loads over terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot manage, can be guided by one human handler.
> 
> DARPA Legged Squad Support System (LS3) Demonstrates New Capabilities - YouTube


 
Put on a head and tail; saddle up and remote control from its back. Bit like what we do now when riding


----------



## bsms

^^ Particularly if you add in random electrical shorts in the control box...or is that just the "Mia" version?


----------



## jamesqf

Stan said:


> Back to the service man that can carry a heavy load. When age sets in so does the results of abuse of the body. Many sports persons that build their bodies to take weight and phisical abuse have issues in later life. Knees give out, Hip jounts need replacing, back is weak or had to be fused in places and so on, brought about by making, or changing the body to perform at a level above its design.


Have to seriously disagree with that. Don't know of any scientific studies, but from what I've seen, sedentary people are far more likely to suffer from most of these problems than those who are athletic.


----------



## Clava

jamesqf said:


> Have to seriously disagree with that. Don't know of any scientific studies, but from what I've seen, sedentary people are far more likely to suffer from most of these problems than those who are athletic.


 
Sorry but that just isn't true, my OH played hockey most of his life and it has completely ruined his knees as it often does with many players. Sedentry overweight people might suffer but that is because they are carry huge amounts of weights if only on short distances.


----------



## Stan

jamesqf said:


> Have to seriously disagree with that. Don't know of any scientific studies, but from what I've seen, sedentary people are far more likely to suffer from most of these problems than those who are athletic.


There is a difference between those that sit in an office. Those that keep temselves fit and those that partake in contact professional sport. The injuries sustained in those type of employment sport comes home to roost when age starts taking its toll.

Does not need a sientific study, all one has to do is look around the injuries sustained from Rugby is all the evidence one should need. Knees, shoulders, broken necks backs, heart. These are all muscle and skeletal damage that come home to roost. Arthritis also effects joints that have suffered injury when young. 
I read a while ago many athletes have suffered minor heart damage through over exertion, if correct that may also come home to roost later in life. That was information given to me from my heart specialist.
As for living a life of activity. That does not gurantee fitness later in life. I have a hip problem caused by my past employment which involved being strapped to a floor sanding machine.

I would wager if a study was done, and honestly, on sport and its long term effects we would be sitting infront of the TV more and would not be riding horses. The largest claims on the accident insurance and hospital services in my country is sport related.

God help us if the health and safety people get there fingers into horse riding. We would be wearing armour like motorbike riders, helmets all the time, super glue to make sure we did not fall out of the saddle. The horse would have to pass an inspection to make sure it had the right attitude for the type of riding we get involved in, and also a tube into a vein so if it got out of hand we could adminster a seditive to calm it.

Sorry James I disagree with you but enjoy the debate. Horse riding is considered a dangerous pass time/sport/hobby. As is going to war.

I did not have much else to do tonight just sitting around willing it to rain.

Cheers all.


----------



## Clava

Stan said:


> There is a difference between those that sit in an office. Those that keep temselves fit and those that partake in contact professional sport. The injuries sustained in those type of employment sport comes home to roost when age starts taking its toll.
> 
> Does not need a sientific study, all one has to do is look around the injuries sustained from Rugby is all the evidence one should need. Knees, shoulders, broken necks backs, heart. These are all muscle and skeletal damage that come home to roost. Arthritis also effects joints that have suffered injury when young.
> I read a while ago many athletes have suffered minor heart damage through over exertion, if correct that may also come home to roost later in life. That was information given to me from my heart specialist.
> As for living a life of activity. That does not gurantee fitness later in life. I have a hip problem caused by my past employment which involved being strapped to a floor sanding machine.
> 
> I would wager if a study was done, and honestly, on sport and its long term effects we would be sitting infront of the TV more and would not be riding horses. The largest claims on the accident insurance and hospital services in my country is sport related.
> 
> God help us if the health and safety people get there fingers into horse riding. We would be wearing armour like motorbike riders, helmets all the time, super glue to make sure we did not fall out of the saddle. The horse would have to pass an inspection to make sure it had the right attitude for the type of riding we get involved in, and also a tube into a vein so if it got out of hand we could adminster a seditive to calm it.
> 
> Sorry James I disagree with you but enjoy the debate. Horse riding is considered a dangerous pass time/sport/hobby. As is going to war.
> 
> *I did not have much else to do tonight just sitting around willing it to rain.*
> 
> Cheers all.


Agree with you, except the waiting for rain bit , I'm waiting for it to stop!!!


----------



## Stan

Clava said:


> Agree with you, except the waiting for rain bit , I'm waiting for it to stop!!!


Send it my way we are in the middle of the worst drought in 30 plus years The north Island of New Zealand is now in critical condition for water. Where I live the grass has died and the water table is so low it will take an awfull lot of rain to bring it back up again. Send it our way.


----------



## Clava

Stan said:


> Send it my way we are in the middle of the worst drought in 30 plus years The north Island of New Zealand is now in critical condition for water. Where I live the grass has died and the water table is so low it will take an awfull lot of rain to bring it back up again. Send it our way.


I wish I could, that sounds terrible. Sending watery vibes.


----------



## Back2Horseback

Re: the two girls on that pony, I got physically nauseated, and couldn't watch more than probably thirty seconds. I kept thinking..."THOSE WOMEN are old enough to WELL KNOW BETTER than to ask that sweet, tiny mini to carry ONE OF THEM, let alone TWO!"

Did you see it try to buck, but the girl in the back was so heavy it couldn't even use it's G-d given defenses to get that huge weight off of it's BUTTOCKS, (where she was, in reality, "riding")...So grotesque.

As for human body breakdown secondary to weight carrying & concussive forces of gravity, I live with those results daily! When I say "I", this refers to watching my DH, who at age 43 should be in his prime, suffer constant, debilitating pain. He is an Army vet-82nd Airborne, with hundreds of jumps under his belt, including a night jump where he hit the ground going, as estimated, twice as rapidly as he should have been...whomever the rigger was responsible for packing his chute made an error.

His chute opened improperly, causing a terrible spin, which he thankfully was able to essentially untangle, but with the side effect of being unable to slow himself in proper time, having allotted so much time to the act of stabilizing his chute during this high wind night jump (which, by the way, never should have occurred. Their highest officer requested twice for orders to have it canceled, and the commander above said,"No way. Jump is on!"--or something to that effect)...Anyhow, my husband sustained severe ankle fractures, right side body injuries of numerous types, and what we now know to be a fractured vertebrae in his cervical spine, his lumbar spine, and his thoracic spine, totaling (obviously) three severe vertebral fractures, leaving his arms numb every morning upon waking and remaining such for at least thirty minutes after waking. His ambulation is so "off", due to his injuries, causing his boots to wear so unevenly, that to see the left vs.the right is almost astounding.

He was the mortar guy in the army also, so, on jumps, he not only carried a very heavy ruck as did all the guys, but also carried that 60# plate!
On top of this (his injuries incurred prior to war time), he did serve in Desert Storm ( heading for Iraq one month after having the last of the pins removed from his R ankle!) and while over there continued earning numerous service medals and was an amazing troop.

Despite his disabilities, he still works a completely physical job, and takes no narcotic pain meds because he so fears side effects. He's truly my hero. The point in all of this, is he is extremely athletic, fit, carries maybe 20# more than ideal (as HE sees it, because he's 20# more than he was upon returning from the middle east!) and he doesn't complain, but is still in pain all the time. When bodies are asked to do abnormal things, even when in excellent shape, there can be long term consequences, and such early breakdown! I can't imagine denying such...his army buddies ALL HAVE similar physical issues.They were all in from four to twenty years, and every guy that was in service longer than four years has worse injuries than the guys who served less time...

I know my husband wouldn't trade his military time for ANYTHING, EVEN with his injuries...so I "get" the horse that struggles to keep doing a job, carrying a heavy weight because they are inclined to please, to succeed, to do anything they're asked, even if it hurts. 

We as the humans have a responsibility to be aware of preventing them from doing the stuff that hurts them in that case!

**By the way, I have to add that I absolutely LOVE THE PIC of the rider on the feather-footed draft breed! The rider looks lovely up there, position, apparently (from the look of it) the well-fitted saddle and all; the horse is gorgeous (!) & the two make an absolutely picture perfect view together! I'd love to ride a draft...I feel we'd be well suited, that my "bulky looking/stocky" frame would appear more "lithe" from the back of a draft. (how VAIN DID THAT SOUND? Yikes!)...Most importantly, I'd simply love riding a draft breed, their sweetness, their enormous stride, feeling extra secure up there like riding a TANK! I have just adored all the Clydes and Shires I've met!

Thanks so much for the share of that photo, as it really got me thinking. It emphasizes to me that perhaps I should look in that "realm" as another possible option in my ever changing horse-search! 
Hope this all wasn't too off topic.


----------



## bsms

Moderation is a wonderful thing. Spend your life sitting on the sofa, chomping on chips, and you are likely to have lots of health problems. Become a pro athlete...same. My son-in-law is on 100% disability after two tours in the Marines in Iraq. Partly from explosions (brain injuries), but partially from the toll of carrying so much weight around - permanent damage to the knees, back & shoulders before he was 25. Something in between is desirable - regular exertion, but not a brutal overload. Same with horses.

It is a pity that more are not bred specifically for heavier riders. There are a LOT of 300 pounders in the USA today, and few horses capable of carrying them well. But horses like that DO exist, and it seems like it would be a great market opportunity for a breeder. The picture from the previous posts would darn near be a perfect advertisement - a heavier rider looking fine on a horse:








​ 
A lot of folks don't realize how much exercise you get riding a horse, so it might be a perfect market opportunity. Folks who wouldn't think of trying to jog for miles might get excited at the thought of a 1-2 hours ride on a sturdy horse - but most would also have better sense than to try it on my slender horses. Maybe a 15 hand version of little 13 hand Cowboy:








​ 
From the number of threads on HF worrying about someone's BF who weights 250+, it seems like a real market is there...:wink:


----------



## Celeste

I have a (human) friend that weighs over 300 pounds. As a result, he has diabetes and hypertension. He is a heart attack waiting to happen. I feel bad for him. He certainly needs some exercise, but the heavier you are, the harder it is to get started. He (the human) is an "easy keeper". This is another topic, but it is one that is worth discussing, perhaps on another thread. Not only is the horse being stressed, the human has health problems as well.

I am overweight, but not obese. This whole discussion is an inspiration to me. I don't want to have to give up riding just so that I can be obese.


----------



## nvr2many

At the same time, getting out riding would seem to motivate many to lose weight as they do it. I vote more horses to carry the weight to get people moving!


----------



## PinkNumnah

Just catching up on the thread.

We do ride for 3hours plus and also hunt for the day. However I have never felt the need that we would have to ride two to a horse in an emergency. If the injured person couldn't ride on there own then they would require ambulance, road or air, if I didn't have phone signal I would ride and find help. I'd lead an injured horse on foot.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Stan

O/K I know I have over done it but as the rain sets in the internet goes awol

First two are Savannah as a baby clyde xross TB huge horse
Next Stella Clyde cross with what ever jumped the fence at the time We call them station bred used for high country farming/mustering.
The black horse also some clyde in her 39 years old and still going. Now providing enjoyment for those less fortunite than us she takes disabled for rides.
Laying down is Kate a quarter horse but now sold and replacement being looked for. And last is Bugs my 6 year old green broke gelding quarter horse cross TB.

This has become a good topic and what was the general outcome. :lol:


----------



## jamesqf

Back2Horseback said:


> As for human body breakdown secondary to weight carrying & concussive forces of gravity, I live with those results daily! When I say "I", this refers to watching my DH, who at age 43 should be in his prime, suffer constant, debilitating pain. He is an Army vet-82nd Airborne, with hundreds of jumps under his belt, including a night jump where he hit the ground going, as estimated, twice as rapidly as he should have been...


Not to get too far off topic, but there is a difference between the effects of exercise, even very strenuous exercise, and the damage caused by accidents - which includes the damage caused by competitive sports like football, rugby, hockey, and similar, where the players inflict serious injury on each other. Being tackled or hit with a hockey stick is NOT exercise, nor is landing too hard after a parachute jump.

I have a few minor bone problems, too, but they weren't caused by exercise, they were the result of getting hit by a car.


----------



## Clava

jamesqf said:


> Not to get too far off topic, but there is a difference between the effects of exercise, even very strenuous exercise, and the damage caused by accidents - which includes the damage caused by competitive sports like football, rugby, hockey, and similar, where the players inflict serious injury on each other. Being tackled or hit with a hockey stick is NOT exercise, nor is landing too hard after a parachute jump.
> 
> I have a few minor bone problems, too, but they weren't caused by exercise, they were the result of getting hit by a car.


I was not talking about hockey injuries at all, I was talking about simple wear and tear, normal hockey is not a contact sport (although of course peole do get hurt). My OH's knees are not good from pounding up and down a pitch.


----------



## Golden Horse

PinkNumnah said:


> Just catching up on the thread.
> 
> We do ride for 3hours plus and also hunt for the day. However I have never felt the need that we would have to ride two to a horse in an emergency. If the injured person couldn't ride on there own then they would require ambulance, road or air, if I didn't have phone signal I would ride and find help. I'd lead an injured horse on foot.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Have you visited the more remote and less populated areas of Canada and the US?

I know that my perceptions of many things have changed over here, for instance I didn't carry a rifle when checking cows in the UK, I do here. Without leaving my own land (or more correctly the banks, but that is a different discussion) I can quite see getting to areas that we would have to double up for some of the journey back, maybe. Without moving to far away from here we are talking genuinely of life and death decisions when it comes to problems on the trail, due to climate, conditions, wild life etc etc. 

So having lived both lives, UK life is a lot softer, you PROBABLY have never had to shoot an animal because the vet couldn't get to you, we have. When it comes to the real crunch, a human life to me outweighs possible harm to an animal, and if needs must then you do what it takes to survive.


----------



## JaphyJaphy

Clava said:


> Normal hockey is not a contact sport (although of course peole do get hurt).


In _WHAT_ universe?! :rofl:

Seriously though, I know what you mean.


----------



## Back2Horseback

jamesqf said:


> Not to get too far off topic, but there is a difference between the effects of exercise, even very strenuous exercise, and the damage caused by accidents - which includes the damage caused by competitive sports like football, rugby, hockey, and similar, where the players inflict serious injury on each other. Being tackled or hit with a hockey stick is NOT exercise, nor is landing too hard after a parachute jump.
> 
> I have a few minor bone problems, too, but they weren't caused by exercise, they were the result of getting hit by a car.


I'm sorry. I realize that I left out the part of the story involving him humping his 60# pack all OVER THE DESERTS of the Middle East, here in the states (Ft. Bragg), & elsewhere, for the five years that didn't involve his injury/subsequent recovery time of about a year. That was part of what I meant by he and his buddies, and the fact that all of them, being infantry, walked miles and miles daily, carrying very heavy packs, and he/they all have significant breakdown at FAR TOO YOUNG an age!

Thanks for letting me clarify, though yes, definitely off topic mainly...sorry OP!

Re: our OP...what are your thoughts about all of this? Plan? Has this conjecture, ad nauseam, been helpful to YOU and your question at ALL?

Gosh I sure hope so, what with all the finger flapping WE'VE gotten out of this! :0) Thank you, OP!


----------



## PinkNumnah

Back2Horseback said:


> I'm sorry. I realize that I left out the part of the story involving him humping his 60# pack all OVER THE DESERTS of the Middle East, here in the states (Ft. Bragg), & elsewhere, for the five years that didn't involve his injury/subsequent recovery time of about a year. That was part of what I meant by he and his buddies, and the fact that all of them, being infantry, walked miles and miles daily, carrying very heavy packs, and he/they all have significant breakdown at FAR TOO YOUNG an age!
> 
> Thanks for letting me clarify, though yes, definitely off topic mainly...sorry OP!
> 
> Re: our OP...what are your thoughts about all of this? Plan? Has this conjecture, ad nauseam, been helpful to YOU and your question at ALL?
> 
> Gosh I sure hope so, what with all the finger flapping WE'VE gotten out of this! :0) Thank you, OP!


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PinkNumnah

We don't normally go for more than 20 miles. It would be a long walk but walkable
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AlexS

Celeste said:


> I have a (human) friend that weighs over 300 pounds. As a result, he has diabetes and hypertension. He is a heart attack waiting to happen. I feel bad for him. He certainly needs some exercise, but the heavier you are, the harder it is to get started. He (the human) is an "easy keeper". This is another topic, but it is one that is worth discussing, perhaps on another thread. Not only is the horse being stressed, the human has health problems as well.
> 
> I am overweight, but not obese. This whole discussion is an inspiration to me. I don't want to have to give up riding just so that I can be obese.



Not always. My husband is 300lbs, and is one of those people who goes to the Dr, dentist etc when he is supposed to. I haven't seen a Dr in years. His blood pressure is where it needs to be, no diabetes, or any of the other things usually connected with heavier people. 

He's a big guy in general, his shoulder span is really wide, his hands are like shovels. Sure he could lose a few pounds, but as it's not affecting his health, I really don't give a hoot. His desire to get on a horse is also somewhere less than zero.


----------



## Celeste

Your husband is tall enough to carry the weight.


----------



## tinyliny

Alex, he just looks big becuase you are tiny!


----------



## bsms

Off Topic, but if you ever ride into country like this, then you'd better not count on cell phone coverage, and the walk to help can be 50 miles. The guy in the picture is an old fried who runs cattle south of where this picture was taken. He and his boys used to ride thru that canyon herding animals.


----------



## nvr2many

Well as long as we are showing our big husbands, lol. I may as well share mine. He too is big broad and tall! I am 5'7" or so and he is 6'3" or more and about 267............ He does ride with me..... And before anyone freaks out.......... we have large horses! The one in my avatar is 17.2 and at least 1500lbs.


----------



## jamesqf

Back2Horseback said:


> I'm sorry. I realize that I left out the part of the story involving him humping his 60# pack all OVER THE DESERTS of the Middle East, here in the states (Ft. Bragg), & elsewhere...


Sorry, but back in the day I too humped a military-issue pack (Marine Corps variety) over various assorted terrain. Then in the several decades since I've carried backpacks of significant weight up & down various mountains. Then there were the years I spent doing construction, spending days carrying around a couple bags of cement, boxes of tile, and other heavy objects. The only damage I've suffered is the result of accidents.

Plain fact is, the body - human or animal - does not really wear out. It may suffer injury (like your husband) or disease, but it's almost always capable of repairing the effects of exercise, and will be the stronger for it.


----------



## bsms

If not overstressed, exercise helps. If done to excess, it will cause wear and tear that doesn't always get healed. Sorry, but I've known too many folks missing the cushions between the bones - including my SIL in his 20s.

That isn't due to disease, but to excessive wear and tear - kind of like what would happen if you always floored the accelerator in your car.

Pushing 55, it is obvious that it takes me more rest time between exertions to rebuild and get stronger than it did at 25. Take that rest time away, and permanent damage will occur. That is why exercise is good IF you don't overdo it. A lot of older runners will tell you their race times go UP and their injuries get more severe if they try to train daily. I've talked to guys in their 70s who get their best race times by running 2 times a week instead of daily.


----------



## Clava

JaphyJaphy said:


> In _WHAT_ universe?! :rofl:
> 
> Seriously though, I know what you mean.


Sorry Off topic, but just to show which Universe.:lol:

Use of body is strictly prohibited while stopping opponents getting the ball and rough play is an offense. :wink: Hockey Rules And Regulations


----------



## Clava

Golden Horse said:


> Have you visited the more remote and less populated areas of Canada and the US?
> 
> I know that my perceptions of many things have changed over here, for instance I didn't carry a rifle when checking cows in the UK, I do here. Without leaving my own land (or more correctly the banks, but that is a different discussion) I can quite see getting to areas that we would have to double up for some of the journey back, maybe. Without moving to far away from here we are talking genuinely of life and death decisions when it comes to problems on the trail, due to climate, conditions, wild life etc etc.
> 
> So having lived both lives, UK life is a lot softer, you PROBABLY have never had to shoot an animal because the vet couldn't get to you, we have. When it comes to the real crunch, a human life to me outweighs possible harm to an animal, and if needs must then you do what it takes to survive.


 
Not sure what your point is:? , no-one says you don't have to do these things, we just said we didn't have to or wouldn't need to, things are different all over the world. An earlier statement implied that trail horses should be taught to double up - this isn't the case everywhere.


----------



## its lbs not miles

Oh what a bucket of worms.
Let me start out by saying I'm sorry if I repeat something that's already been said, but I'm not going to go through reading 13 pages of comments :lol:. Also that there really isn't enough time or space to cover it all here.

I always love it when someone asks me if horse "A" can carry person "B" and they're using the persons height and weight compared to the horses height and weight. One of the things I always want to say (and have said, but only to someone I know really well and won't get upset with me) is - do you want to know if the horse can carry it or should carry it?
It's one of those cases where a little knowledge is dangerous.
There's a LOT more to it than just the weight ratio.
If you really want to look at the weight a horse should carry you can't just look at the weight ratio of rider and tack to horse. You also need to look at the size (circumference) and density of the cannon bones as well as the size of the horses loins. For example a horse usually has cannon bones that are the right size for carrying it's own weight, but when you put the saddle and rider on it's no long the size it really should be. There is a formula for it and I'm sure if you google for it you should come across it. Ok, I did it for you http://www.horseprotection.org/id51.html. Not a bad article. Covers much of what I was going to say (or already have). So you can read the article and I can move on.

All that being said it doesnt mean a heavy person can ride. You just need to take more than just the weight ratio into account. However for just weight the 20% of less rule is best providing you look at the total picture.

I'll never be able to over state the importance of a well fitting saddle unless you're just going to walk around a ring for 15 min a few times a week.
You want the most surface contact from the saddle tree (i.e. the bars). The tree displaces the weight, so with a well fitted saddle the more tree you have the more weight you can displace. That's why the over 160 they came out with the early version of the Universal Pattern military saddle to replace the Hungarien/German saddle (in the US we call it the "English" sddle) that had be developed for the Cav, but had a bad history of leaving too many horses unfit for duty during long campaigns (doesn't displace enough weight over a large enough area). Anyway, you really should have a well fitting saddle.
Riders ability matters too. Balance, balance, balance. I won't get into it all. If you can't ride it's not going to be fun for the horse no matter how light or heavy you are (it will be just more unpleasant if you're heavy).

No I have to ask. A 15,1 hand QH that weighs 1100 lbs?
My almost 16.3 Georgian Grande is 1214 lbs. My 16.1 hand GG is 1317 lbs and I'm working her more in an effort to take off at least 100 lbs.
Please watch the weight of your horse. But that's a different topic (although an equally important one since weight can lead to so many health issues for a horse).

And although it off the topic I'll post a picture of both these horse together and you'll see how much better the younger/taller one looks at the correct weight. While 100 lbs might not seem like a lot when talking about 1200 and 1300 lbs horses it's weight that she doesn't need and shouldn't have. She'll be healthier without it.


----------



## its lbs not miles

oops, typo (I make a lot of them).... doesn't mean a heavy person "can't" ride....


----------



## its lbs not miles

Ok, the pictures too big to show all of them. I'll have it on my horses page under Val (since her head if blocking Kt's head) and you can see the difference even 100 lbs can make.


----------



## Golden Horse

Clava said:


> Not sure what your point is:? ,


Seems often to be the case I'm afraid.


----------

