A look at some of the science studies done about horses carrying weight and the implications for riding.
As someone who is at my heaviest because of a medical condition that I can do nothing about until they can get my kidneys healthy enough to operate on the problem, it really frustrates me when this topic comes up. Not because I don’t feel like it is important because it is, but I just feel like it lumps all heavy people into one category. It makes it seem like we are an oblivious, denial ridden group without a care in the world for the animal’s well being. I venture to bet while there are those special flowers who can’t be honest with themselves, the vast majority of heavy people are VERY conscious of what our weight means for the animal. Just because threads about this aren’t met with a bunch of responses saying “oh yes you are right, I weigh xxx and would never ride a horse that couldn’t carry me.” It is normal for people to be defensive about their weight no matter what number pops up on the scale. It is frustrating to hear people broadly say you must be under a certain weight to ride. For me, I bought a very nice, healthy, horse that was more than capable of carrying me. I stick to low impact riding and wouldn’t do anything to cause him any discomfort now or down the line.
Yes I know there are those that don’t seem to limit themselves appropriately, but I can say that those people aren’t going to read that article and change their behavior anyway.
Edit to add when I responded I was trying to say I agreed with the article and appreciated the way the info was presented. I was talking about the frustration I feel for posts about weight where OP sees heavy person riding and wants to know how heavy is too heavy, not this post. It was early give me a break. 
thanks Crockpot.
[QUOTE=kaitsmom;7786075]
As someone who is at my heaviest because of a medical condition that I can do nothing about until they can get my kidneys healthy enough to operate on the problem, it really frustrates me when this topic comes up. Not because I don’t feel like it is important because it is, but I just feel like it lumps all heavy people into one category. It makes it seem like we are an oblivious, denial ridden group without a care in the world for the animal’s well being. I venture to bet while there are those special flowers who can’t be honest with themselves, the vast majority of heavy people are VERY conscious of what our weight means for the animal. Just because threads about this aren’t met with a bunch of responses saying “oh yes you are right, I weigh xxx and would never ride a horse that couldn’t carry me.” It is normal for people to be defensive about their weight no matter what number pops up on the scale. It is frustrating to hear people broadly say you must be under a certain weight to ride. For me, I bought a very nice, healthy, horse that was more than capable of carrying me. I stick to low impact riding and wouldn’t do anything to cause him any discomfort now or down the line.
Yes I know there are those that don’t seem to limit themselves appropriately, but I can say that those people aren’t going to read that article and change their behavior anyway.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the article? Actually the article does not “lump all heavy people in one category” or make sweeping statements about weight and riding.
I thought it was a very fair and balanced examination of the issue.
Yes I read the article. I guess I was meaning to say I appreciated that aspect and thought the information was good. By “posts about weight” I was talking about the posts where people say they saw so and so riding and wonder if the rider is too heavy for the horse. I was just trying to explain why on those threads you don’t see at of heavy riders explaining the measures they go to to make sure their horse isn’t injured or carrying too much weight.
There is a problem from the get-go and that is the assumption that there are set limits for all horses. IMO there is no reliable science to support any of the proposed/presumed ideals or limits.
There is reference to the “cavalry standard” of 20%. I have made an extensive study of the literature in the Library of the U.S. Cavalry Association (an extensive collection of materials from many countries) and I cannot locate any army that ever advocated the “20% standard.” It appears that this enters modern literature via Gordon Wright who published an abridgment of the primary riding text at the Cavalry School at Ft. Riley. I found a couple of references in articles from the '20s and '30s but they were statements that the standard existed while giving no reference to any instruction, notice, text, or other definitive document.
The Remount Standard for the U.S. Cavalry was the TB-type horse, 15-16 hands, 900-1100 pounds. The standard load of that period (including rider, tack, weapons, ammunition, equipment, etc.) was 230-250 pounds. These standards are found in multiple documents. Do the math and you will see very quickly that the “20% standard” was not followed, at least in the U.S.
The load out for a British trooper of the period was 250-280 pounds, as British tack was somewhat more robust than American tack. I think some weapons were also heavier. The British horse might have been slightly larger, depending on the type of cavalry involved. In the U.S. there was only one type of horse soldier. European countries, including the British, had multiple types. While in the modern era most mounted troops were pretty standardized some still carried lances and wore bits of armor. That added extra weight. Some regiments still used large horses even though the trooper no longer wore armor of any kind.
The German load appears to have been somewhat larger than the British load, although I’ve not done any deep research on this. Some German horses were quite large, but not all were. Just how big these horses were is something I’ve not fully researched. There were mounted German regiments were the minimum height for a trooper was six feet. The average British or American trooper was likely in the 5’6" range. German tack was likely more like British than American tack in “robustness.”
The military horse of this period was expected to be able to travel 25-35 miles per day for multiple days. The exact distance would be determined by terrain, water, forage, etc. It was expected that horses would lose a certain amount of “condition” while in the field. A commander was expected to monitor the condition of his horses and modify his practices accordingly, in accordance with his mission.
As for the OSU study, it shows that a horse carrying a heavy load has to work harder than a horse carrying a light load. Somehow I don’t see this as “ground breaking.” I suspect all of us have had the experience of carrying a light suitcase or a heavy one. I don’t think we need a scientific study to establish that light suitcases are less energy intensive to carry than heavy ones.
Lip service in the article is paid to fitness, condition, training, rider skill, etc. For armies these were absolutely critical in maintaining the ability of their horses to carry significant loads for several days at time. The most important is rider skill, followed by properly fitting tack. A small person riding badly on an ill fitting saddle is much more stressful to the horse than a larger person in properly fitting tack riding correctly. This is something that doesn’t have to be “scientifically demonstrated.”
The easier a rider is on their horse the better it is for the horse. This, again, is not something that we need a university study for. If a rider is oversize, unfit, or lacks skill then they should do what they can to fix the situation. Arbitrary limits are just that.*
G.
*There are a few places where arbitrary limits can make sense. One of them is the “dude string” that one finds in places like the Smokeys, the Grand Canyon, and some other similar venues. Here you have to assume that the person on the animal will have little to no skill and will be, essentially, a “large sack of wheat.”
I’m a heavy person. But I’m 5’9". Which means that when I just hit the overweight designation for my height, I’m 70 lbs heavier than someone who is 5’2". That weight is going to sit a LOT differently on the back of a horse since a significant portion of it is going to be my legs.
For reference, here is someone at 5’2" and 200 lbs https://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1478008897/in/set-72157602199008819
and here is someone at 5’9" and 200 lbs
http://www.mybodygallery.com/photos-34000-body-shape.htm?StartAt=6#.VC1K7JNdV2M
You can’t tell me that those two women wouldn’t sit differently on a horse and affect them significantly differently.
And a western saddle that may weigh more, may also distribute the Rider’s weight better, causing less soreness than a lighter saddle that concentrates the weight more on the horse’s loin.
Making the horse work more isn’t the same as hurting them, I wouldn’t think. In a riding school setting it is perhaps important, but I’m not sure about as a privately owned horse where we really do not ask that much of them.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;7786146]
A small person riding badly on an ill fitting saddle is much more stressful to the horse than a larger person in properly fitting tack riding correctly. This is something that doesn’t have to be “scientifically demonstrated.”[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t it?
Ignoring the red herring of tack fit, since both heavy and light riders can have excellent-fitting to horribly-fitting tack, it would be interesting to demonstrate scientifically just how much harder on a horse is a light, unfit, unskilled rider, vs a heavy, well-skilled rider with soft hands. More interesting frankly than “heavier rider means more work for horse” which, as you mentioned… kinda duh as far as conclusions go.
Good comments everyone. Thanks for MANY details on old Cavalry practices, Guilherme. If anyone made good studies of “how to do it” with ridden horses of various sizes, people of various sizes and skills, it was the Cavalry folks back when it was so important to have Cavalry ready and fit at all times to be able to perform well in the field.
Guess there will always be some folks who “jump to conclusions” about larger folks riding horses and “hurting them”. Often the “jumper” only has enough expertise to get themselves into trouble!! No real depth of knowledge, and quite willing to open mouth to prove it! Same person doesn’t notice the happy way of going horse shows, good equitation of the person on horse, light hands on the reins, horse in fair proportion to rider above. Some breeds are quite noted for their weight carrying ability in being short-backed, manage their rider above EASILY. Icelandics are among the first to come to mind of those short-backed, smaller breeds. And those animals stay sound, not sway-backed or in pain under larger riders, way into old age!
We hear similar things about Driving Horses who often cover quite a few miles when out being used. Better Drivers make sure the horse/pony is fit, know his limitations before asking too much of the equine. But talking to Riders about going for a 10 mile drive, you see horrified expressions often! Then if one says they do that 10 mile drive 3-5 times a week, people start thinking you are cruel! Really not an issue to the sound, fit horse, they actually like getting out and going places. They are not sore when finished, kick up their heels when you turn them out to roll Not really THAT tired!!
The Judgy Pants Folk are not the skilled horsemen, folks who have gotten horses fit for distances, usually never did any riding for more than an hour or two except at a show. No understanding of what you can ask of a horse and still not “hurt” him by using your equine this way when horse is asked and prepared for their work correctly.
A couple of our older horse friends remind us with a laugh that “horses are Beasts of Burden!” They should be expected to do work for owners, maybe get sweaty and tired at times, while being enjoyed. The few hours most horses actually work is pretty small in a week, if he is not a busy lesson horse or out under a Cowboy covering miles. Owners sure get tired and sweaty serving the equines while working to clean stalls, haul hay, groom and feed, plus work to pay for everything!!
If anyone said anything to me about being too heavy to ride, I would get back in their face asking how they were entitled to speak about it? I would want to know their education that allowed them to be “experts” on this topic? With the big mouths, it is almost too easy to point at stuff on their horse, their riding, that needs MUCH improving before they point at others. They are riding the lame horses, iron-mouthed horse on the edge of being uncontrolled. Again, those who speak out to be nasty are pretty much the ignorant and quite willing to prove it. Their opinion has no value, so ignore it.
These topics never seem to go anywhere constructive. All of a sudden every overweight rider becomes better balanced (“Don’t tell me that a 250 lb PSG rider is harder to carry than a 150 lb bouncing beginner”) and more fit (“These things never take into account that some people are just very muscular. I have tons of muscle and I am uber-fit”) and are riding a more suitable horse with a better fitting saddle than their lighter counterparts. Some of that is fine and is very true. However the weight issue remains. The study looked at identical riding/riders with increased weight via lead. More weight=more stress. At a certain point, that causes undesirable physiology. The study which was linked (which looks at numbers and facts, not opinions) makes some good points, but those who don’t want to hear them, won’t. I have NO DOUBT that there are riders who are heavier and are better riders and are carried much more easily than a lighter person, but there are limits. There are also heavy riders who aren’t good riders and are unfit and bounce and are very taxing and uncomfortable for the horse to carry.
Heavy people (and heavy is always in relation to the horse. You could be stick thin and still too heavy for a pony) CAN be good riders and their horses CAN do just fine, but there is no denying (as stated above) that extra weight is extra work for the horse and crossing certain boundaries means extra wear-and-tear on the horse. It is something that is good to be aware of and address when necessary. That is all that study is saying. It is obvious, but is important to keep in mind. Horses will do a lot for us without complaint and we need to be fair. I periodically see people riding horses that they are way too big for, and they are usually in denial about it and no one wants to say anything. The horse is probably talking and no one listens.
[QUOTE=Coanteen;7786259]
Doesn’t it?
Ignoring the red herring of tack fit, since both heavy and light riders can have excellent-fitting to horribly-fitting tack, it would be interesting to demonstrate scientifically just how much harder on a horse is a light, unfit, unskilled rider, vs a heavy, well-skilled rider with soft hands. More interesting frankly than “heavier rider means more work for horse” which, as you mentioned… kinda duh as far as conclusions go.[/QUOTE]
Why would tack fit be a “red herring” in all of this?
If you go here you can see some examples of properly fitting and improperly fitting saddles. http://www.dynamicsaddlefitting.com/system.html I don’t endorse these folks, they were just the first place I came up with some examples of pressure patterns common in poorly fitting saddles. From these scans it’s pretty clear that it’s possible to have really dramatic concentrations of weight from a poorly fitting saddle. If the rider is light that’s bad; if the rider is heavy it can be catastrophic. But it’s also clear from the scans that a well fitting saddle will distribute weight correctly (be the rider heavy or light).
That heavy loads mean more work for the horse is the conclusion I read from the OSU study, not that any particular percentage of weight causes harm.
While I really hate the word (due to it’s misuse by certain groups with agendas) a horseman has to take a “holistic” approach to their discipline. While any one aspect can be explored (tack fit, strength, balance, conformation, etc.) at the end of the day they must “put it all back together” and make the whole thing work.
G.
Because tack fit isn’t the variable being examined, it’s rider weight bad ability. Specifically whether a heavy but good rider is easier or harder on a horse than a light but inexperienced rider.
A heavy good rider in well-fitting tack might be better than a light bad rider in ill-fitting tack, but hey, I bet that a heavy good rider in well-fitting tack on a lame horse will be harder on the animal than a light bad rider in ill-fitting tack on a sound horse! See, I can add additional variables too.
Both tack fit and soundness (and extremes of horse age, and extremes of temperature, and altitude, and whatever else you’d like to throw I to the mix)are additional distracting variables, and both need to be cut out (equalized; randomized is you want to employ scientific- research language) if you want to answer the question of rider weight vs ability.
[QUOTE=Coanteen;7786259]
Doesn’t it?
Ignoring the red herring of tack fit, since both heavy and light riders can have excellent-fitting to horribly-fitting tack, it would be interesting to demonstrate scientifically just how much harder on a horse is a light, unfit, unskilled rider, vs a heavy, well-skilled rider with soft hands. More interesting frankly than “heavier rider means more work for horse” which, as you mentioned… kinda duh as far as conclusions go.[/QUOTE]
There are, they are called competitive and endurance rides. In the years I rode the Midwest circuit in competitive the winning heavyweight rider’s horses generally had better scores then the winning more abundant lightweight riders.
I have seen numerous winning horses loaned to a lightweight rider and so sore that they buckle in the vet check when their backs are checked.
^ they’re actually called anecdotes.
I’m not saying you’re wrong (or right, for that matter). I’m just saying your anecdotes aren’t data.
[QUOTE=Coanteen;7786724]
^ they’re actually called anecdotes.
I’m not saying you’re wrong (or right, for that matter). I’m just saying your anecdotes aren’t data.[/QUOTE]
If veterinarians tracking pulse, respiration, abdominal sounds, muscle tightness, flexibility and soreness isn’t scientific enough for you I guess all studies are “anecdotal”.
Are they also recording rider weight, and noting the rider ability?
[QUOTE=Coanteen;7786724]
^ they’re actually called anecdotes.
I’m not saying you’re wrong (or right, for that matter). I’m just saying your anecdotes aren’t data.[/QUOTE]
Thank you!! Contrary to the belief of conspiracy theorists and woowoo salesmen, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’ 
As far as the topic at hand, it’s tough to truly know how a skilled, heavy rider affects a horse versus an unskilled, lightweight rider because there are so many variables in riding style, fitness of horse and rider, horse conformation, and so on…
And what about skilled, heavy riders versus skilled lightweight riders? Or unskilled riders across the size spectrum? And what is the horse being asked to do … Go on a quiet trail ride, or gallop cross country at Rolex?
[QUOTE=Coanteen;7786793]
Are they also recording rider weight, and noting the rider ability?[/QUOTE]
Yes, rider weight with tack is recorded. Depending on the event 3-4 different weight divisions.
[QUOTE=Coanteen;7786718]
Because tack fit isn’t the variable being examined, it’s rider weight bad ability. Specifically whether a heavy but good rider is easier or harder on a horse than a light but inexperienced rider.
A heavy good rider in well-fitting tack might be better than a light bad rider in ill-fitting tack, but hey, I bet that a heavy good rider in well-fitting tack on a lame horse will be harder on the animal than a light bad rider in ill-fitting tack on a sound horse! See, I can add additional variables too.
Both tack fit and soundness (and extremes of horse age, and extremes of temperature, and altitude, and whatever else you’d like to throw I to the mix)are additional distracting variables, and both need to be cut out (equalized; randomized is you want to employ scientific- research language) if you want to answer the question of rider weight vs ability.[/QUOTE]
I just went back and re-read the article, sidebars, etc. There is really no discussion of much but weight.
The flaw, there, is that weight by itself is subject to a number of arbitrary limits/ideals (10%, 20%, 195 lbs., etc.). The only thing the research from OSU established was that a horse carrying a bigger load is working harder than a horse carrying a smaller load.
My initial comment to all this was “There is a problem from the get-go and that is the assumption that there are set limits for all horses. IMO there is no reliable science to support any of the proposed/presumed ideals or limits.”
Discussions of tack fit, conformation, or any other variable are outside the scope of the original article but not outside the scope of discussion of the underlying subject. In that sense the article is deeply flawed.
Again, we can look at raw weight limits and consider them but at the end of the day we have to put them into the context of use.
G.
I liked the article, but putting the lead weights on the saddle certainly doesn’t simulate how riders carry their weight. One of the biggest issues I’ve seen teaching beginners is that when an obese rider becomes unbalanced, there’s extra pounds that are jolting off to one side. I don’t see our sturdy lesson horses having trouble carrying the skilled obese students, or being sore after lessons, but the balance issue can be hard for them. Especially when learning to jump when everyone lands on a horse’s neck at some point or gets totally left behind.
I really really dislike the BMI scale, though, so what I consider obese is having a visibly high % of body fat. I know too many solidly built women who get down on themselves for their high BMI when they’re perfectly fit and look great for their bodies.
Let’s just all aim be fit, healthy, and enjoy riding horses 
.
The article/study wasn’t really flawed; it just very strictly examined a single variable, one which is easy to examine and where rider style, fitness, etc can be controlled by simply piling weight on the same rider.
It’s your (also initial, since it’s part of your first post on this thread) comment that the rider fitness/ability question doesn’t need to be “scientifically demonstrated” that I questioned.
The “heavy good rider is better than light crappy rider” is pretty much a COTH dogma, but it is a far more complex and interesting question than that of pure weight, and I disagree with you that it’s so self-evident that scientific inquiry is not even necessary.
