# Rider weight vs. horse size



## SlideStop (Dec 28, 2011)

There is a post in the plus size rider section about this article. 

Being 10% of the horses body weight is unrealistic. Let's say the average horse is generously 1200 lbs. 10% of what would be about 120 pounds max, now minus 20-40 pounds for the saddle and you would roughly need to weigh 80-100 pounds. Really? 

I'm definitely very over weight and I've never had a problem with smaller horses carrying me. I ride a tiny 14.2 QH for my reining lessons and he has no issues performing normally. My horse would have to weigh roughly 2400 lbs according to this study. 

Obviously less is going to be better, but I think 10% is a little extreme. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

There are already two threads about this exact article here. Very recent.

Just read the comments on it....pretty much says it all......


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Already posted here, using a link to a British article:

http://www.horseforum.com/plus-sized-riders/how-much-weight-should-horse-carry-161017/

Majority opinion seems to be that the vets doing the study need some real world experience around horses. This is just silly:_"An industry practitioner proposed a 10 per cent rider-to-horse ratio for optimum performance, up to 15 per cent as satisfactory and a level of 20 per cent to be a welfare issue."
_​There is no scientific basis for saying anything above 20% is abusive. I rate this right up there with the folks who think using Border Collies to herd sheep is abusive of Border Collies...


----------



## BlueSpark (Feb 22, 2012)

pile of rubish.

most men, and the majority of women should be riding drafts by that definition.

my 800# arab should only carry 80#, including saddle(!!!!), so thats, what, a 60# rider, average size of a 10 year old??!!?? I weigh more than double that(as do most women), and after a year of very hard riding she has not had one back problem or lameness issue.

Its only recently that people started breeding really big saddle horses in north america, most before were 14-15hh, 700-900#. most traditional horse cultures(in tibet, the middle east, native americans) bred strong, fast, hearty, enduring horses in the 13-15hh range weighing 900# or less. you cant tell me those guys were all under 80lb....


----------



## katec1991 (Jun 25, 2012)

Oops, sorry. I must have missed the other threads 

I thought it was a bit unrealistic as well... maybe it's true for a horse that's already underweight and that no muscle mass, but not a horse in good condition. I ride an 800lb pony and weight 100lbs myself, then my saddle is probably 20lbs. I've had no problem with him being sore after a long ride and he doesn't rear. He bucks occasionally when the weather is nice, but that's because he's feeling good, not from pain.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

10% isn't even true for an out of shape horse. For an out of shape horse, 20% is a good ROT. A study was done where the horses started with no riding for 4 months, and were then ridden for 45 minutes, then rested for 2 weeks before the next 45 minute ride. The study showed no indication of discomfort up to 20%, some at 25% and significant discomfort at 30%.

I ride Mia at about 23-24%. Even when she had gone 8 months without being ridden, the only time she showed any signs of discomfort were during mounting from the ground. After a month of regular riding, that went away too. Mia is a princess, in her mind at least, and will complain about any peas under the mattress...so I think that data point is a valid one.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

Who had that endurance stuff at the last big weight discussion here, bsms, wasn't that you? The weight ratio at the Tevis, 32% I think?
Plus, according to that study, a fat horse can carry more weight than a fit horse. Not. 

I found another theory, horse + rider + tack divided by circumference of cannonbone divided by two. If it's around or below 75, you're good, anything above 80 is too much. 
That takes into consideration a fit horse. BUT, in my case, my 16.2 hand TB would struggle with weight my 14.2 hand Arab would be fine with. So even that formula is not quite right.

Plus, the built of the horse. Short back, strong loin and good bone are key components.


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

Probably me, I have posted the tevis survey info multiple times when people bring up stupid rule of thumb percent stuff. Anyone that says anything about percentages doesnt know what they are talking about. Horse to rider weight ratio has ZERO to do with anything. 
The tevis data, showed zero correlation between rider weight and horse weight in finnishes, top tens, or pulls up to 32% , which was heaviest weight in study. 
Using weight percents is just straight up stupid. So a fat lard butt out of shape pasture puff with skinny legs can carry more than a 900 lb super fit Polish Arabian with 8 " cannon bones ? 
Also the average horse is NOT 1200 lbs. How many of you guys have actually put a horse on a scale ?


----------



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

Well, I guess someone should start breeding 2500 lb drafts for trail riding. Because that is what it would take for me, a western saddle, and my trail riding gear. :shock:

I'm riding a 14.3 Mustang now, who is built like he has a little draft in him, and he is not only sound at age 20 (after me having ridden him for the past 8 years and being a rope horse before that) but he never has back soreness when I brush or put pressure on his back. I am very particular about saddle fit though and went through about 10 saddles to find one that fit like a glove. 

While I would love to weigh 100 lbs less, that's not the case at the moment. And my horses seem to carry me just fine. I think it's a trade-off. I give them the best care possible, lots of love and treats, vet care, hoof care, the best saddle fit I can manage, and they carry my fat butt around for a few hours a few days a week. I actually think they probably work less than horses did 100 years ago. I also have 2-3 horses to alternate with, so that helps too.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

Been Googling a bit. 
All riding horses of the world, the real using horses, were small. Carmargue( France, cow ponies), around 14hh, icelandics, 12-14hh, carrying 6' riders, apart from the breeds already mentioned.

A bigger horse tires faster, it has to carry more of his own weight plus a rider.

The first optical impression can tell a lot. The human brain can recognize what's " okay" from a first look " it looks off"

It depends on width, length and sway of the horse's back, bone strength and frame, like square or rectangular, narrow or " with four corners".

It shouldn't carry heavy weight before it's fully grown, around 7 years of age, it needs to be conditioned for the weight, so after carrying 100 lbs only, if you put 200 lbs up, it will of course struggle.

A way of recognizing when it's too heavy, if horse which stands for and after mounting makes a few steps forward( to find balance) .

So, IMO, there is no hard and fast rule, it all comes down to common sense. Of the rider....the horse has it already;-)


----------



## jamesqf (Oct 5, 2009)

deserthorsewoman said:


> Been Googling a bit.
> All riding horses of the world, the real using horses, were small. Carmargue( France, cow ponies), around 14hh, icelandics, 12-14hh, carrying 6' riders, apart from the breeds already mentioned.


Just to start an argument, I would bet that most of the people riding those horses were in much better physical condition, not overweight, etc. I would suspect that weight-carrying ability has a lot to do with how the load is balanced and carried, in much the same way that I can carry a lot more weight with less effort in a well balanced and fitted backpack, than I can if it's flopping all over the place.

(Just as a aside, yesterday I was out on my horse for the first time in about 4 months, due to winter & some non-horse related injuries. I'm close to 200 lbs, she's a middling-sized anglo-arab mare, and did she want to take it easy? No, it was continual "I wanna go, let's trot up this hill, can we canter a bit, huh?")


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

You're right with your first paragraph, of course....but thinking about the " research and the 10% rule it came up with, not even a fit and trim 6' Icelandic man would be 10% of a 700 lb Icelandic pony....sorry, horse, going long distances in toelt or pace.. ...or an average sized man, maybe 150 lbs, on a 14 hand Carmargue, which should be around 800, 900 lbs, plus gear, herding cattle.


----------



## katec1991 (Jun 25, 2012)

Rider weighs her weight


----------



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

I didn't read the article (and I'm not going to)
10% is either a typo or the person is on drugs.
But the thing that gets me is everyone focuses one the weight ratio. Weight ratio is just one part of a larger picture. (and I know this is going to get lengthy and MANY disagreements :lol
First there's the base what is the upper limit that the horse will operate the best at.
There are three things you look at here (not just the weight ratio).
1. Weight ratio with the horse at a healthy weight (15 hands and 1200 lbs is not a healthy weight). Highest ratio that's best for the horse is 20%.
2. Cannon bone size and density. The cannon bones on most horses are the size needed to carry their weight. Not the added weight of rider, tack, etc.... That's why long distance riders (not you endurance people, but LONG distances that take weeks or months :lol should do enough load bearing riding first to build up the cannon bones for the weight to be carried.
3. Loin size. You want good sized loins (short backs are good too when it comes to carrying the load)

That's your base line.
To that you add the physical conditoning of your horse (it's ridden enough and in a manner to put it in good condition for the riding you plan to do). The fit of the saddle (and depending on the kind of riding you do the type of saddle since some saddles, even if they "fit" are not suited for long distances). The ability of the rider (to often over looked).

Now, that's what's best. Not what is normal. We riders love to look at what a horse can do and thing that since they can do it it's fine. We also like to look at what was done in the past and compare it to today.
e.g. Over 100 years ago horses were ridden for days by the Cav on campaigns with weapons, gear, food, ammo, tack and rider.... but the average trooper weight less than 145 lbs (people were smaller on average) and the saddle weight 17 lbs on a horse the averaged just over 1,000 lbs and was far robust than the animals the last 100 years of selective breeding are putting out.
So if we want to make that comparison we'll need to look at what humans and horses are like today.

Can your horse carry more than 20% on cannon bones of a size for it's weight alone with narrower loins and/or a longer back? Absolutely. I'm talking about the best case where the horse has the least negative physical effect Not what a horse is capable of.
Endurance riders routinely ride at a weight ratio that's over 25% and some go over 30%. They ride hard (it is a race after all). Their horses are checked to make sure they meet a minimum acceptable level of condition (which is includes the ability to recover to an acceptable level in a given time)...a bit over simplified, but that's the idea of it. After the race the horse and rider can take a few days break and recover. Has the horse been over extended? Sure, but (in most cases) they've been conditioned for it, they're checked before, during and after to make sure they're not in real danger and they get a nice recovery time afterwards. No much different that some physically demanding and over extending sports that humans do (ever run a marathon?). Some people do the same thing to themselves and manage to live very long, healthy and happy lives (especially longer than a couch potato).

But the endurance riders is the second smallest group of riders out there (long distance riders is the smallest.....how many have you met?), so using them as an example is not really best. (I'm sorry to any of you who are working in the saddle, but while I did that for years LONG ago I have no idea what the numbers are like for people doing that today....30 years later. I do know that your case is much like the long distance riders and the need for a saddle with maximum weight displacement)

Most riders are either wanting to compete in an event or show of some kind or they are just wanting to ride for fun when the can and have the time. They probably don't ride more than a hour or two a day (unless trail riding) and likely might average 10 hours in a week. That's a pretty light work schedule for a horse.

My opinion, for what it's worth (which "ain't" much :lol. If your horse is a healthy weight (if it's not get it there) and you weigh more than you should, but a healthy weight for you with tack would be within the 25% range (+ or -) for the horse then you can use the weight you're carrying now to your advantage and do load bearing with (ride long and slow and often....easy walking for miles daily is good) to build up the cannon bones (it takes a long time) while you work on slimming down. If you've got a little 900 lbs Arabian that's at the right weight and you're over 6' with a healthy weight of 210 lbs, well, just don't over do it .
It's not going to kill (or seriously mame) a healthy, well conditioned horse to carry 25% around for the kind of riding the vast majority of riders do.

If you're a nut case like me and think that anything under 100 miles a week and anything not over a week of riding is just training or conditioning then you really do need to consider and take seriously the base line I started out with (along with conditioning, a light saddle well fitted saddle with a tree that displaces as much weight as possible, etc....)

If you're thinking you want to take up long distance riding......first convince yourself that your not crazy (don't bother trying to convence your family :lol:.....my father went to his grave convinced that I was a nut case from the time I started doing 100 miles on long weekends as a young man back in the 70's). Then train your horse to high line (or stake out...I like staking out), ride your horse for 20-30 miles, camp for the night and ride back home. Do this until you deside that you don't like this kind of riding (even if you have to ride for 3 or more days camping). If you only start enjoying it more then seek professional help. If the Dr's can change your mind and you've already got a horse trained and conditioned just go for it and enjoy (and welcome to the smallest, virtually unknown group of riders :lol. You'll learn why EVERYTHING to do with the horse is important. Not much fun being 3 or more weeks out and your horse is out with a sore back from the saddle or performance is dropping because the weight is to much or something else goes wrong (and that's not counting the bad weather you'll always end up having to endure :lol

I did say this would be LONG (and sorry for any typos)


----------

