The highlighted was one of my many issues with the Ohio study. Given its small sample size and strange methodology I find it strange that it is so often quoted.
Simple fact, horses do not, and never will come with a load limit sticker. We have to rely on our skill as horsemen and women, and the input of vets, trainers, farriers it’s who see the horse and rider on real life to work out what any horse is comfortable carrying.
Then of course, there is the whole thing of what you are doing, 50 mile competitive trail, days hunting, show jumping, barrel racing, or walking for 30 minutes on level ground. Far to many variables.
Deb Bennet has a B.S. and an M.S. in Geology, and her Ph.D. is in Vertebrate Paleontology. All of her “studying horses” has involved skeletons. She has no education or research experience in Animal Science, Equine Science, Growth Biology, or Exercise Physiology. Many of her claims are based on her own personal biases and opinions, not research.
No. It is (equine) scientist speak for, “If you’re going to proclaim yourself an expert in something, you should actually have both training and research experience in the field in question.”
I actually more or less agree with many of her conclusions and opinions, but I recognize that the farther she moves from her specialty of anatomy, the less foundation she has in science. So I also look at who and what she cites as sources.
Her history writing is accurately researched popular history, and she does go into archives and read old horsemanship books. When she says the US Cavalry had a 250 lb limit on their horses at some time period, that is historically correct. But when she says that is a genuine physical limit that should pertain on all situations at all times, that is opinion or perhaps conjecture. She hasn’t done any physical scientific studies on the topic. And as a scientist, I would expect that if there was well researched evidence saying something else, she would accept that evidence and change her position.
This may have already been addressed somewhere upthread; I believe relative height of the rider to the horse figures into the equation. The question of “Am I too big for this horse,” comes up almost daily on a UK-based FB group I belong to. Oftentimes, the person asking is a lightweight, young adult woman. Yet to my eye, the answer is almost always “Yes” based on what I’m seeing in the video/stills & history of unusually violent behavior under saddle as reported by the rider.
You may be an 18yo woman & only weigh 110 lbs & still be too big at 5’4" for a 12.2hh Dartmore as your daily driver. To put it in my non-scientific wording: You’ve got too much spine relative to the horse’s spine. The right angle of your spine to the horse’s spine is too long, your center of balance is too high off the horse’s back. Coupled with the fact that your saddle options are 1) butt overflowing the cantle of a child-sized saddle or 2) a properly-sized adult saddle that extends way too far on the pony’s back into regions not equipped to bear rider weight, and you are too big for the horse over the long term. No matter if you technically fall at the 20% weight ratio.
I don’t see it asked nearly as often by US based riders. I suspect it is mainly boils down to the fact that they have all those native pony breeds in the UK. And they’re plentiful & inexpensive. Thus, ponies for adults is far more common there.
This seems a timely article - especially for those who are so certain that overweight = poor health, or that weight loss is as straightforward as calories in bs calories out. Some interesting studies referenced here that might be worth tracking down too.
Very true. As a 5’9 woman who fits into size 2/4 and is a size 26 breeches US (38 Euro) people are also floored by how much I weigh (typically between 64 - 70 kgs). When lifting heavy, which makes me a LOT more dense, I am on the high end of that spectrum. Yet whenever I got a leg up, trainers and grooms were confused about the weight I told them I was vs how much “jump” I could give them that they barely had to assist.
I think weight limits are a grey area and should be on a case by case basis. Weight isn’t a dirty word, its a fact and should be considered with the variety of other factors like strength, balance, skill level, etc. As many indicate there, there is a difference between incorrect ratio of size between animal/ rider and “weight limits”.
Mostly just chiming in to say most people think I weigh 125 - 130 and they’re baffled to realize they’re nearly 20lbs off and that you cannot always determine weight from sight alone.
Vid in question - outsized and terrible horsemanship, inappropriate.
Totally worth it for me. I had sleeve. Lost just over a 100 pounds. I gained 45 back because I was drinking too much alcohol. I have now dropped 34 pounds since I stopped drinking in November. I have 19 pounds to lose to get to my surgeon’s goal weight. I am 7 years out from weight loss surgery.
I had 2 co-workers that had weight loss surgery. One RNY and one band. Both before me. Neither gained their weight back.
I had underlying medical conditions- PCOS in particular.
Some WL programs are better than others about teaching you to eat after surgery and about providing ongoing support.
Well, I’m glad to hear it worked for you. One of my best friends in the horse world had WLS last year, and I’m crossing my fingers that she keeps the weight off, because she’s much more able to enjoy riding her horses now. She was definitely in the “fit and fat” category; she’d evented through Prelim and ridden up to 4th level dressage before WLS. It’s just easier now.
But… At the same time I know many people who have not kept the weight off, and not because they were in programs that gave them no support. One friend was doing great, pre covid, but the isolation got to her. And she had covid herself, and several months of recovery where she was home alone and unable to even go outside. And my brother-in-law is a GI doctor, who deals a lot with people who have nutrient absorption issues after their surgery. He’s not a fan.
The nutrient absorption issue is one reason I picked sleeve over the RNY bypass. Less issues with that with the sleeve. They only shrink the stomach not remove portions of the intestine. I am not supposed to take vitamins as gummies, chewable is better. I have not had issues
I don’t remember exactly ( been too long now) except you clearly identified yourself as out of shape and overweight and still showing your horse and doing fine at it.
I was just saying that is a fine goal as long as you weren’t too heavy for your horse . That is what the topic of this thread was all about at the time . I wasn’t singling you out. Just replying to what you posted.
And for those who didn’t read the actual study, this is the take away:
“Despite a wide range in weights (Table 1) carried during this competition, this study showed that rider weight—whether described as an independent value, or in relation to the body weight of the horse—did not have a significant effect on endurance performance over a 160-km distance”
Rider weight, which included tack and any carried equipment, ranged from 56.4-118.6 kg which is roughly 125 - 261 lbs, give or take some rounding errors.
This is an excellent point. When I offer an opinion on whether or not someone is too big for a horse, it’s not purely about weight carrying ability, it’s also about balance (length of the rider’s torso vs. length of the horse) and the overall picture. I also try to be aware of my bias - as a recovering hunter rider, my eye wants to see barrel below the rider’s heel, and the rider’s torso not overbalancing the horse’s front end over fences.
I have an acquaintence (posting on this thread - she knows who she is) who rides an adorable stock bred horse who is built like a brick with legs: broad short back; good weight carrying confo. To my eye, she looks big on him. No barrel showing below her heel, and he’s short from back to front, so the torso ratio looks wrong to me. But the horse is absolutely appropriate for her weight, because she rides in a completely different, low stress discipline, with no jumping. She’s also an experienced rider who rides in good balance. If everything else was the same, and she was a beginner, either without a following seat or someone who rode tipped forward, balanced on the neck, the horse would probably struggle. If she rode in a higher impact discipline, that might be a problem as well. Same size horse, but a weak back? Probably trouble.
When I was still riding full time (and weighed ~ 135 - 150#) I often schooled small horses and large ponies and it made me VERY aware and careful with my upper body position, because just dropping my shoulder could noticabley unbalance them. On the horses I ride now, I’d have to shimmy up past their withers onto their neck to influence them.
That eye thing is tough. In a hunter saddle on my slab sided 16.1h horse I look a titch tall but relatively normal. I’ve switched to dressage and now I look like a giant. Same horse, same weight, longer stirrups make him look tiny and me enormous. Our eyes definitely can fool us.
True. Personally, I’m not looking at the leg. Mostly the torso. That might be a me thing, though, as I “see” lines of energy thanks to reiki. On the FB pages I mentioned upthread, we’re also talking people with half their butt hanging over the cantle or the saddle covering the horse from in front of the withers to the kidneys
Oh sure - I was mostly speaking “in general”. It’s just amazing how different balance points etc can also influence our perceptions of size appropriateness. I’m not talking about people who don’t actually fit in their saddle or saddles too big for the horse.
Think it through…
Ok, a saddle adds weight, BUT the tree distributes your weight along the horse’s spine. So instead of all your weight being concentrated on right between your thighs it is spread.
Saddles are the kind way to ride a horse, ESPECIALLY when one is heavy.
