r/Equestrian • u/kmondschein • Jun 14 '26
Ethics A rider weight vent.
Me again. I saw the post from that sweet 17-year-old girl who's being bullied as "too fat" and I need to talk about a conversation I had today.
I was at a historical-fencing event today where we spent four hours in medieval armor. As it's well known that I'm a horse person in that small community, I got talking with someone who wants to get back into riding. He's a few inches shorter than me, but a barrel-shaped 230 pounds of muscle. He power-lifts and wrestles, and the fact he did a four-hour class in armor will tell you all you need to know about his fitness level. And he's had some riding experience. The barn literally down the street from him won't take anyone over 200 lbs. I, of course, advised him to find a Western barn.
I'm going to say this in small words because it needs to get out there: weight and body composition are very different things. There is no study out there that addresses the muscle vs. fat issue. However, I ask you: would you rather put an untrained novice 198-pound woman who is 5'2" on a 1100-pound horse, or a conditioned 230-pound, 5'9" man with some experience? I'm not saying we should put 300-lb tourists on tiny Paso Finos for trail rides because of body positivity (though I have known many fine horsepeople who carried, shall we say, more than a little extra adipose tissue), nor that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson should be riding... anything. I'm saying that we need to have realistic and flexible guidelines that take into account individuals, their body composition, and their ability to carry themselves.
Likewise, since I am occasionally asked to teach riding to other people and I'm a responsible person, I wanted to do Certified Horsemanship. Well, the only place offering a clinic near me has a 200-lb limit, and they wouldn't let me truck in my own horses.
What arbitrary weight limits do is discourage men, particularly men with athletic backgrounds, from getting into riding. These rules also increasingly feel like they were invented by women to bully other women. It is ridiculous and needs to stop.
Edit: The comments are very loud but this post has over 80% 85% upvotes, so I think we can see where public opinion lies...
32
u/LowarnFox Jun 14 '26
It is different for a riding school compared to you as an individual though.
You're talking about letting one individual who you've met possibly ride your horse, which is fine. But if a riding school publishes a 230lb weight limit, they have to accommodate that for everyone, and maybe they have 1-2 horses those people can comfortably ride and what if one of them goes lame etc? Or if they assess one rider of that weight, what happens when 2 more turn up next week and so on?
I think once a riding school knows you there is often a little bit of flexibility for some people. But they can only offer this flexibility by not advertising a weight limit right at the edge of what they can theoretically accommodate. To have someone as a regular client you need to be able to offer them regular lessons, if you have multiple clients at that weight you have to figure out how to fit them all into the schedule.
Having a published weight limit also helps avoid some of the awkward conversations that might occur when someone turns up and actually, no, really they are unsuitable to ride.
A weight limit yes is an arbitrary cut off, and yes they are often set a bit low. But it helps the riding school run as a business and is usually set with horse welfare in mind.
→ More replies (15)
106
u/QZRChedders Polo Jun 14 '26
There absolutely is a difference in rider ability and risk to the horse. But this is hard to quantify and opens up massive discrimination issues, it’s far easier to set a hard number limit that’s backed by evidence and leave it there.
Once a riding school knows you they’ll often bend that rule, but at first it’s far far easier to just use it.
I’m an ex rugby lad, not a small or light fella, but I play a lot of polo and ride very light because of it, but I don’t mind being blocked out of many schools because I understand why. It’s not fair, it’s not perfect, but it’s horse welfare first and that’s the utmost priority.
A good pack can let you carry more on your back, but it doesn’t change the strain on your legs.
→ More replies (4)
154
u/sillywhippet Jun 14 '26
I very very rarely see men mentioned in the weight discussions or called out for being too heavy. Weigh limits at schools seem to be a thing we call women out for but unless the guy is both very tall and very overweight, there's no enforcement. Hell, I've been at riding schools where my shorter but fatter femme body got called out but not dudes who were taller and weighed more than me. I was the one with riding experience too, so it's not like it was a novice vs experience thing.
26
u/kachnec Jun 14 '26
THISS I understand that people that want to ride should watch their weight, because no matter what, it influences the horse, but why is this conversation always centered to women and men are excluded? I've heard so many people say that 80 kg is too fat to ride a horse but only if it is a woman... it's completely okay, if a man weights 100 kg a rides. Everytime a woman has some fat to her, she gets called out, but people alway keep quiet about a man with a beer belly...
9
3
14
u/that_horseguy Jun 14 '26
I thought of that when I read the post yesterday. I, currently weighing around 90kg which is like 20kg more than the op from the other post, has never even had someone insinuate that I might weigh too much.
I only ride giant horses now, just to not look disproportionately, but that wasn’t always the case, and even decently sized horses can look like ponies
5
18
u/QZRChedders Polo Jun 14 '26
See I’ve had the opposite as a fairly burly guy. I’m immediately asked to prove the weight I said. I would prefer it be a blanket rule that everyone with hat and boots has a check before a ride and that’s how my polo club do it, but that’s the world unfortunately
→ More replies (1)7
u/Equus77 Jun 14 '26
Agree. No one calls out a 6' plus man on a 14.2 QH in a reining class.
9
u/ImmaTastyKikiRoll Jun 14 '26
Well no one in the western world does lol in the English world we shit talk big ass dudes on those tiny spindly legged horses all time 😂😂
77
u/madcats323 Jun 14 '26
My dad weighed 200 pounds and was an excellent rider. He didn’t ride light boned petite horses. I’m no longer 125 pounds. I don’t ride light boned petite horses.
Yes, it makes some difference if you’re able to balance and help the horse but at the end of the day, you have to consider the impact you’re having on a living creature.
Weight limits aren’t arbitrary or bullying. People are way larger than they used to be. Horses aren’t.
7
u/ParsnipFarmer676 Jun 14 '26
People are way larger than they used to be. Horses aren’t.
I'm not sure this is true, though. Have you seen how ranchy Quarter Horses look these days?
→ More replies (1)
27
u/murky_seeder Jun 14 '26
Did you ask that barn why they have the limit, or did you assume it was about body shaming rather than liability and horse welfare?
-1
13
u/Zec_kid Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021929009006101
This study tested the difference between the forces on a horses back in sitting and rising trot and found: "As expected, the computed average vertical force did not differ between riding techniques and was not significantly different from the body weight of the riders. At trot, two force peaks were present during one stride cycle. Both peaks in rising trot were significantly lower compared to sitting trot (peak 1: 2.54±0.30 versus 2.92±0.29; p<0.001; peak 2: 1.95±0.34 versus 3.03±0.32; p<0.001). This supports the general assumption that rising trot is less demanding for the horse than sitting trot." (de Cocq etc al, 2010)
I think this directly illuminates a mistake that is often made in this discussion. Average forces are not akin to peak forces! Yes the average forces are equal to the rider weight which stays the same. But if an untrained rider introduces more peaks in vertical and horizontal forces the horse has to counteract them and thus exert additional energy. This does make a difference especially in higher gaits with less feet on the ground at any given time.
I don't know the maximum forces an uncentered rider can introduce compared to their body weight, but I think this would be the property needed to settle this argument. Because the smaller the additional forces are, the closer two rider will have to be in weight for an untrained lighter rider to be worse.
4
40
u/Mope4Matt Jun 14 '26
It's not ridiculous. It's saving the backs of horses, who don't care whether the extra weight is from fat or muscle
→ More replies (5)
65
u/Frosty-Concentrate56 Jun 14 '26
Sure, rider ability and athleticism counts for something, but 230 pounds is 230 pounds. Being athletic doesn’t somehow magically make the weight lighter.
30
u/kerill333 Jun 14 '26
Exactly. I think the ‘ride lighter’ idea is a comforting myth. You can definitely ride heavier if you sit like a sack of potatoes, bounce around, have terrible balance, stay on by using the reins, etc, but it’s absolutely not possible to be lighter than your physical weight.
A badly packed uncomfortable rucksack at say 70lbs is tougher to carry than a perfectly packed comfortable one of the same weight, but the latter can’t weigh 60lbs or 50lbs…
20
u/Bitter23 Jun 14 '26
I feel like people might understand horses better if they were to carry 20% of their own bodyweight in a hiking pack for a simple flat 10km walk. It would be a good example of the difference that fitness and wellfitting 'tack' does, as well as the understanding of how much difference the actual weight does.
At my weight, 20% is more than 12 kgs and I wouldn't willingly pack that heavily at my fitness level (or if I could avoid it at all).
-2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
Some people can manage that better, just like some horses can manage it better based on conformation. Also: we’re bipeds.
7
6
u/captainsjm Jun 14 '26
What makes the difference is the strength to hold yourself. Have you never seen a beginner painfully flopping through the trot? Can you honestly say it makes no difference to the horse to have a balanced rider?
4
u/Frosty-Concentrate56 Jun 14 '26
As I wrote: sure, rider ability and athleticism counts for something.
It’s just not a magic trick that makes the weight go lighter.1
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
No, but the person with more muscle will carry themselves better.
8
u/NinjaSarBear Jun 14 '26
The person with the muscle can carry themselves but once you put them on a horse the weight is still the same regardless of how they sit, the horse is still carrying all the weight no matter how its distributed
29
u/Letsgotravelling-124 Jun 14 '26
For me, it’s somewhere in the middle. The argument of an untrained lighter rider being worse than a trained heavy rider falls flat as your weight is your weight. You can’t physically ride lighter, you can just make sure you don’t add any extra weight and banging on the horses back. Men’s weight definitely needs to be held more accountable. And the horses physical strength and confirmation also has to be taken into account. A well balanced fit horse can take more than an unfit horse.
15
u/Ok-Flamingo2801 Jun 14 '26
It's not that a trained rider will ride lighter, but an untrained rider will be harder on the horse. If you use the 20% rule, then it's not that a trained rider can go over the 20%, but an untrained rider should be well under the 20% to make up for them not being balanced
8
u/Letsgotravelling-124 Jun 14 '26
I get all of that but a lot of people use that argument as a way to get out of the 20% rule (so they can ride a horse that they are too heavy for). That’s what I’m addressing. And that’s why riding schools will have weight limits that are more of the lines of 15% (normally 12-13 stone weight limits) as they are dealing with beginners, unbalanced clients, etc.
7
u/AutoModerator Jun 14 '26
Hi there!
It looks like you used the word “confirmation,” but did you mean to use the word “conformation” instead?
In equestrian contexts, conformation refers to a horse’s physical structure and build, while confirmation usually means verification or approval.
Just wanted to help clarify!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/Thequiet01 Jun 14 '26
It's not just banging, it's also how well you stay balanced. A heavier rider who is good at staying *with* the horse is quite plausibly going to be putting less actual stress on the horse than a lighter rider who is basically constantly putting the horse off balance because they can't keep themselves properly over the horse's center of gravity.
25
u/Letsgotravelling-124 Jun 14 '26
How balanced you are influences how much extra pressure you put on the horses back but it does subtract how much you weigh. Your weight is your weight. That is the minimum weight that is going to be on your horses back. End of the day, horse riding is a luxury, not a right. Horses always come first.
→ More replies (6)13
u/crepuscule22 Jun 14 '26
agree wholeheartedly. it's so jarring how many "animal-lovers" treat animals as something they have a right to have/use instead of living things in their own right. even if a horse doesn't collapse under a weight, does that mean it is comfortable or healthy for it to carry that weight? why is it so hard for humans to stop making up rationalizations for whatever their personal preference is?
9
u/Letsgotravelling-124 Jun 14 '26
I think a lot of it is to do with how sensitive the subject is. Weight is a sensitive subject and a lot of people view “you’re too heavy for this horse” or “you are over the weight limit” as fat shaming and a jab against them, when it’s actually just about protecting the horse, horse welfare and it’s longevity. A lot of people need to put aside their egos and realise that we are all in this for the love of the horse and we owe it to them to make sure that our hobby of horse riding isn’t detrimental to their welfare.
0
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
By doing that, you are excluding a huge swath of men from riding.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Letsgotravelling-124 Jun 14 '26
Not as many as you think. I work in showjumping. Every male rider I’ve worked with has worked hard to make sure they are fit but light. End of the day, the horse comes first. Riding is a luxury, not a right.
2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
Sounds like survivorship bias: only men who wind up being able to be in that weight range are able to take lessons/stay around.
Also show jumping is a lot of stress on the horse compared to, say Western pleasure.
1
u/Letsgotravelling-124 Jun 14 '26
Again, horses welfare comes first. If you don’t understand that, you shouldn’t be owning or riding a horse in the first place. Riding schools have a weight limit for a reason, that’s normally a bit below 20%, as a lot of their riders are beginners or novices that aren’t balanced. And a lot of people overestimate their experience.
Western pleasure, where you’ve bred a horse to move unnaturally slow that they look lame. Do you really there’s no stress on the body due to that? Yes, there is stress to the horse in showjumping, just like there is in every horse discipline, in different ways. That’s why we should do our best to manage that and make sure we put as little stress on the horse as we can, and a part of that is weight management for ourselves.
2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
This is an example of the judgy, ill-informed opinion I’m so against.
→ More replies (1)2
u/borgman_a Jun 16 '26
"Again, horses welfare comes first."
No... or people wouldn't be riding, or showing, or jumping, or...
→ More replies (4)
45
u/demmka Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Weight is weight - it doesn’t matter if it’s 200lbs of muscle or fat.
Riding schools rely on their horses to operate. If someone has their own horse and rides them a couple of times a week then maybe they could get away with being slightly over the horse’s maximum carry weight. But a riding school horse is doing multiple lessons most days of the week, and with society as a whole getting increasingly heavier, that wear and tear is going to add up quickly. My horse was a riding school horse for many years and because he is 15.1 and a draught cross they considered him a “weight carrier” and put all the heavy adults and beginners on him. It crippled him for a long time, and they had a 12 stone (168lb) weight limit in place.
No one has the right to ride, and businesses are perfectly entitled to protect their assets.
6
u/Cautious_Dark4752 Jun 14 '26
Exactly this! Horses aren't machines, they are living animals that have their limits. To be honest I can't believe this is even being debated, it is nonsense to think otherwise.
5
u/demmka Jun 14 '26
Basically it’s people who don’t want to put in the work to make the experience pleasant for the horse. They just expect to be able to use an animal for their own pleasure, whether it causes that animal harm or not.
→ More replies (21)8
u/allyearswift Jun 14 '26
On the other hand, the same weight on a balanced rider who’ll sit centred on a horse, doesn’t bounce, notices when the horse is uncomfortable, and who can get the horse to work with a supple back, vs a beginner who does none of these things makes a tremendous difference. Most of the time, that experienced and skilled rider will have a good proportion of muscle. Some may also be fat. Some beginners may be very muscular without knowing how to use those muscles, or worse, be stiff.
I’ll take the heavy-but-soft rider over a beginner any day. And a rider doesn’t have to be a beginner to do harm: even a light rider who leans behind the vertical and pulls the horse’s nose to their chest will do real harm, whereas a competent rider will improve the horse’s way of going regardless of their weight. (Ok, there comes a point eventually where a saddle can no longer distribute weight effectively, but we’re talking around 300lbs here, so that’s irrelevant for most.)
2
u/Elegant-Flamingo3281 Dressage Jun 14 '26
I think this part isn’t talked about enough. A skilled rider with feel can ensure the horse is moving correctly through their body, which DOES actually make it easier to carry weight.
For anyone who disagrees with us: do you seriously think it’s easier for a horse to carry 150lbs, crashing on their forehand, with their backs completely dropped? OR 200lbs where the hind legs are taking a higher proportion of the weight, because they are correctly moving through the back?
If your answer is 200lbs is 200lbs I’d invite you to sit back down in your armchair and stfu because you have zero idea what you’re talking about.
3
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 16 '26
This. I am heavier than my horse’s last owner. He had back and shoulder issues when I bought him. Now he doesn’t. But I’ve also gotten him a saddle that fits and do more stretching and bending.
0
49
u/Ready-Astronomer6250 Jun 14 '26
It’s interesting to argue that weight limits should be flexible and individualized, then turn around and claim those limits were “invented by women to bully other women.” Most lesson barns aren’t running sports medicine clinics. So they use a simple cutoff as a management tool. Imperfect? Sure. Malicious? Not usually. (I can understand why some might assume it’s malicious, especially those who have never been on or near a horse or being sensitive/insecure about their own body weight.)
Blaming women for weight limits is a pretty wild leap considering most of these policies exist because people are trying to protect horses, not police human bodies. Total load is still part of the equation. A balanced, experienced 230lb rider may absolutely be easier for a horse to carry than an unbalanced 198lb novice, but that’s an argument for considering rider skill…not for pretending weight is irrelevant.
2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
It is absolutely weaponized by women against other women. Check that other thread.
5
u/ImmaTastyKikiRoll Jun 14 '26
Your thread has strayed away from the other threads topic. She is a novice/advance rider who is worried about being aesthetically judged for her body type, in the show ring, specifically in hunters and jumpers. She is clearly a proficient, experienced rider who can carry herself correctly and lightly in the tack.
You are talking about body weight and first time riders and lesson programs. The two threads do not intersect.
2
u/Tricky-Category-8419 Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
This 100%. I'm 5'7 and when I rode a 15.2 hand paint built like a brick house I was called fat. I weighed 140lb back then and was wearing a puffer vest and long underwear cause "winter in New England." Nasty B was just doing her thing because she and could. Thing is I weighed 20lb more than them but could outwork them all day long, so who was in better shape and better for the horse? Me who could sit the trot without flopping on their kidneys like a dying mackerel or her, who slammed around in the tack and was in their horse's mouth for balance but was 20lb lighter? So after suffering through the smirks and snide remarks for a winter, I saw her at a show, I was in my showmanship outfit. THE first thing she said to me was "Huh, you're not as fat as I thought you were" She just had to ride shaming into the ground.
36
u/Samhwain Jun 14 '26
As someone who, at my lowest weight when I was riding (125 lbs) who is also short and carries weight differently than a lanky/ taller person: I agree. It cannot be emphasized enough that weight and body composition are not equal. I was the same weight as my 5'8 friend (six inches taller than me) and they looked fit while i looked what my barn manager called 'plump.' I owned my horse & my vet confirmed she & I were well matched so the BM never went further then that. But I was within her 20% WITH tack included and still got comments just like that sweet girl. I'd like to point out that i bought my mare from a man who was 6'2 & over 200 lbs (lean but tall man) who was her trainer. If no one had a problem with him riding her, why is it wrong that I rode her? (She was 14.2 QH around 800-900 lbs)
People really do, in general, assume you weigh more than you do just by looking at you. I believe a lot of it has to do with the fairly unhealthy body image standards we see in media/ social media skewing peoples perceptions (similar to how in general Americans (cant speak for other nations here) see a slightly obese cat or dog as 'healthy weight' bc most of us have never actually been taught what a healthy weight is.)
20
u/MerrilyMade Jun 14 '26
So much of it is perception. I'm a woman who's about 150, but I'm 5'7" and fairly muscular. People usually assume I'm lighter than I am and no one gives me crap about riding small horses. There's no actual logic involved!
1
u/whetherwaxwing Jun 14 '26
At 125lbs people actually questioned you?! Who the hell even weighs less than that that’s an adult over 5 feet tall?
3
u/Samhwain Jun 14 '26
Because I looked overweight. Because the weight I did have made my body round in key locations (I carry weight on my hips and midsection more than anywhere else)
3
u/IntrovertedFruitDove Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
u/whetherwaxwing Novice rider who can't actually get to lessons anymore, and I will explain why 125lbs looks "too heavy" with my own story about weird-ass proportions!
So I'm five feet tall and I hover around 110-120lbs. Many friends consider me skinny as fuck, if not underweight.
On the other hand, I'm also Filipino-American, and I have SUCH WEIRD body proportions compared to all the short white women I see, especially the white women who ride. My shoulders are 40 inches around (or 20 inches across, if you only count one side of the shirt) and I'm ramrod straight through the torso. I'm always freaking out about online shopping because I'll need to find a given shop's measurements, and that's not good for my self-esteem. Half the time, 40-inch shirts for women translates to "Large/Extra-Large/XXXX-Large" and I feel like a goddamn whale because I'm constantly reminded that this is NOT THE NORM in the United States.
FEELING like a whale despite KNOWING that I'm tiny got worse when I was riding. On the ground, I look normal, but I really didn't like having pictures or videos taken when I was having lessons--because whenever I'm on a horse, I'm always visibly THICKER than teenagers or similar-sized white women. I'm clearly not fat, but I look like a damn solid tree stump on top of a horse. I take up SO MUCH visual space when riding compared to teen/preteen girls or short white women, and I know damn well that if I progressed in riding and went to shows/competitions, or if I started posting on social media about my riding, everyone would ASSUME I'm overweight, and I'd have to keep reminding people that I'm actually a Hobbit and pretty much any full-sized horse can carry me.
Now, if I still had the time/money for riding lessons in general, I wouldn't care about looking aesthetically nice on a horse, but I would most definitely avoid COMPETING, because that would really fuck with my self-esteem. I'm already a theater major and I know I have to deal with racism and fat-shaming in my INTENDED career, so I'm not about to go for a second round of that in a HOBBY.
6
u/Infamous_Nebula_ Jun 14 '26
I wanted to say that my barn takes extremely good care of the horses. Their health and comfort comes first always. My trainer would never do anything that would hurt one of the horses ever. She has a magna wave, hires chiropractors for the horses, always goes the extra mile. And we have heavy riders at my barn. They ride the bigger horses. There are definitely women at my barn who weight over 200 pounds. It makes me happy to say that. It is very inclusive of all different people. We have a couple of very large horses that can handle that much weight. I love that there is a horse there for every rider of every ability. ♥️
6
u/Infamous_Nebula_ Jun 14 '26
We also have some autistic students, trans students, gay and bi students, young and old. It’s a wonderful place where nobody talks badly about anyone and everyone is kind and helpful. I understand how rare this is and how blessed I am and am grateful. I wish there were barns like mine everywhere
5
u/threesilklilies Jun 14 '26
I used to (before my back went out…) do a lot of backpacking, and for my size, my weight limit was about 35 pounds. Which I could do with a well-fitted, well-balanced, reasonably high-quality pack.
Not a fanny pack. Not a daypack. Not a Dora the Explorer Jansport. If the weight was going to be unbalanced or bouncing around, I’d have to carry less. My limit didn’t go up if everything was good, it went down if things were bad.
I’m not saying this girl didn’t experience fat shaming or bullying over her size, because I also rode when I was younger and less decrepit and that shit is real. But the whole 200lbs of fat vs. 200lbs of muscle, 200lbs of good rider vs. 140lbs of bad rider — it only matters to a point, and that point is the one at which the horse’s safety is in danger. Muscle and skill won’t turn a quarter horse into a Percheron.
21
u/JimboandSkye Jun 14 '26
The universally accepted weight limit for equestrians is 15-20% of the horse’s weight. This amount includes tack & assumes that the horse is fit, a reasonable age, & that the rider is balanced. Therefore, most horse owner/managers who want to preserve the health of their horses will enforce a limit of 200 lbs, not including tack. A rider of 230 lbs plus tack weighing 30 lbs (total 260) would require the minimum weight of the horse to be 1300 lbs, which is a very large horse. As such, I think ppl who choose to have extreme muscle mass (weight) would be better suited to riding draft horses.
21
u/geeoharee Jun 14 '26
Draft horses are bred to pull, not to carry, and generally do not have better backs than riding horses. The fashion for buying a draft cross rather than losing 20lb is not good for the horse.
→ More replies (1)2
u/PeekAtChu1 Jun 15 '26
This is a point commonly recited on this sub that does not have any research to back it up
6
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
That’s not that large; it’s a draft cross. And that is not universally accepted unless you only live in the English/jumper world. Western horses pack much more.
7
u/Lollc Jun 14 '26
There is not a universally accepted standard. I know that it’s a guideline, and a lot of people and organizations use it because there has been some study and hard numbers are easiest for writing policy, but it’s far from universally accepted. You will find that some ideas in pop culture get accepted because they started from a supposition, so someone pulled some numbers out of thin air because you have to start somewhere, and did a study. Like, we all must drink at least 64 ounces/1.89 liters of water daily, or we must walk at least 10,000 steps daily.
4
u/Zec_kid Jun 14 '26
The numbers didn't come out of thin air but out of research papers ...
3
Jun 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/allyearswift Jun 14 '26
The household cavalry horses carry up to 16 stone/100kg/225pounds; historic figures may have been lower but the horses were expected to carry a lot more gear (harder to balance, can’t get off to walk) and stay sound over weeks and months. (They were also backed at four and mustered out at 17… and officers horses were sought-after riding horses).
The old definition of a heavy hunter was ‘carry 17 stone (108kg) in the hunting field all day’. Which gives a better idea of what horses were expected to do.
I’ve seen some of the studies the 15/20% rule is based on and was not impressed. A lot of these studies aren’t considering best practice: a well-fitted saddle and a horse capable of working over the back.
27
u/Separate-Maize9985 Jun 14 '26
For any given level of ability, weight is weight. I don't think your distinction between buff and flabby people makes any difference to the horse.
5
u/whetherwaxwing Jun 14 '26
I think there’s 2 different debates going on on here — one is weight factored in with riding ability, and the other is how weight is factored in for men vs women.
The 150 pound 17 year old was unquestionably being bullied and that had much more to do with her gender than her riding ability. People here are now arguing about the finer points of who can and can’t ride at over 200 lbs, but I think OP’s point about bullying should be considered as something being used against women who are not actually too heavy at all in spite of looking softer and rounder. The fact that that is happening is a problem and it’s only disguised as being about the horse’s welfare. At higher weights, whether fat or muscle, it’s a different debate. But deterring average-size women from riding because their bodies don’t look right is absolutely bullying.
3
2
5
u/Dangerbeanwest Jun 15 '26
I think some riders are too big for some horses. I don’t think there is any magic formula. I’m sick of seeing ppl complain wildly about rider’s weight for no reason. End of day you could have the “correct” weight rider cause a horse as much or more arthritis from doing high impact work all the time. Like if y’all just want yo advocate for not riding horses, ok. But stop pretending like overweight riders is some major health problem for horses. And if you are going to complain about overweight riders than I sure hope you’re out there complaining about horse racing with just as much force at every opportunity bc for the vast vast majority of circumstances where have a plus sized rider the most likely worst issue for the horse is likely an increased risk of developing arthritis that also comes from repetitive training while they are young—like with race horses.
I am so sick of this shit. It’s been like not even 100 years since we stopped using horses primarily for war or menial labor. We are in a new era where our relationship with horses is purely for leisure. And I like to think the horses are enjoying this new chapter as much as we are. Let’s not ruin it. Our sport is getting smaller and smaller. It’s too expensive for most people. At a time when we need desperately to be expanding the number of equestrians, some people just want to be bullies and be horrible.
9
u/gurgelhupf Jun 14 '26
Honestly what so many people ignore in these discussions is the number and lengths of rides, and the discipline. Being at the upper end of the weigt limit has completely different consequences on the horse whether you do endurance riding, jumping or dressage and whether you ride 2 days a week or 7.
With my lease, I'm very much at the upper end because he is a smol boy, but I don't ride him more then 2-3 times a week 30 minutes max, and we focus a lot on topline building and self-carriage. I would never be able to do endurance on him, and that's fine.
2
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 16 '26
And a horse giving 5 lessons a day is usually not getting a ton of fitness training and is under a lot more strain and thus needs more rest than a physically fit horse with a single rider working an hour a day at most and getting turnout when not in work.
2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
This is very true. When we're coming back after The Winter Freeze (I live in New England), I keep my rides short!
12
u/Express-Vegetable612 Jun 14 '26
All of these arbitrary rules and it's possible to just - ask the horse.
There were studies showing the observable changes when horses were uncomfortable with weight. And it is probably just as much about the height and where the mass is held by the rider as it is the weight.
But looking at the horse for comfort while riding might expose when the horse is uncomfortable with a light weight rider due to ill fitting tack or a minor injury and remove it as an income generating critter in that moment. So capitalism encourages percentages and judgement over training genuine observation skills and using them.
2
u/allyearswift Jun 14 '26
The list of horses notably uncomfortable with my weight are smallish elderly pony (I was a kid, got off after a couple of minutes), horse with massive back problem and bad posture, horse with navicular.
Oh, and my horse bareback (no issues with a fitting saddle, so I kept bareback to an absolute minimum).
I’ve also taken a number of horses that were uncomfortable carrying any rider and gotten them to stretch and be comfortable again.
1
4
u/hduridkfjsh Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Yeah…this is multi-faceted. My barn has a 200lb weight limit for men and women. New riders are told this but no one makes them get on a scale. I HAVE been to a trail riding facility where people did have to get on a scale.
Here’s the thing though, only a couple of horses where I ride are even slightly over 16h, mine being one of them and he’s not a true lesson horse, and we mostly have Arabians/crosses as lesson horses and they’re mostly up in age. Some of our lesson horses can only carry small adults or children due to their age and fitness level. (They’re NOT worked into the ground, these are precautions to keep them safe and extend their lives since light work is good for most older horses.) I mean, some of our horses don’t even weigh 1,000 lbs. And mine is only ~1,200 at 16.1h and he’s FAT.
If we had, say, a fit Belgian cross with a strong back then we could offer lessons to someone weighing more than 200lbs and would be happy to do so.
So thats where some of the blanket 200lb weight limit comes from for some barns. They simply don’t have a horse that can accommodate them. Your example at the clinic is a bit disappointing since you offered to trailer in your own horse but maybe they just didn’t want to open that can of worms by allowing trailer-ins. I’m not them so I don’t know their rationale.
Because weight is weight. Having a light seat is a mitigating factor but the horse is still bearing that weight. A person’s personal fitness doesn’t really factor in. The more you weigh the more you’ll need a stout horse with thick bones and a strong back with a wide/short loin. Just look at pictures of destriers.
Not many regular lesson barns have that because they mostly cater to kids or, frankly, women of a certain body type. Also, that type of horse is more expensive to keep which is another reason why you don’t see too many programs with them. They eat more, pee/poop more, need larger stalls, and sometimes finding a farrier for them can be difficult. If more men like your friend called round asking for lessons to only be turned away more barns would be looking to find such a horse since it would be a good investment.
I get the struggle as a woman who was once very overweight. When I was a lot younger I rode Pasos and Peruvians and no, those men you see riding them should not be. I would love to own a Peruvian one day but I doubt that will ever happen because I would need to be back to my high school weight to do so, which is unreasonable because I kept growing into my early 20s, unless I can find one built like a tank with some height.
ETA: I was fat but with plenty of riding experience.
Also, to clarify, just because someone is physically fit does not mean they automatically know how to translate those muscles into horseback riding. Like learning to truly jump. Most of us have the muscle to do a good box jump but you still, usually, have to teach yourself how.
3
u/Equizotic Breeders Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Ok so I get the difference between body weight and body composition, but at the end of the day, 230lbs is 230lbs regardless of if it’s fat or muscle.
Someone that large who doesn’t already know how to ride needs to learn on a horse large enough to manage the movement of all that weight without that person being aware of how to move in the saddle properly.
Until that person is trained to ride properly, they need a larger horse. Once they can ride with a light seat and balance appropriately - which can take years - thats just what they need.
Should they not be allowed to ride? Absolutely not
Does the local barn with a 200lb weight limit likely not have a horse large enough to accommodate a beginner rider at 230lbs? This is probably the case.
We all know how tricky it is to find good, safe, sound lesson horses. Add in a size requirement and it’s just not feasible for every barn to accommodate every size rider.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
I’ll give myself as an example. I can not be under 200 lbs without being unhealthily underweight. I own three horses. All are completely fine with me.
1
u/ImmaTastyKikiRoll Jun 14 '26
Yeah but are they older, less fit and carrying two to three of you a day for 30 minutes each ride? 😂 edit: because that is what a beginner lesson horse is/does
18
u/snow_ponies Jun 14 '26
I don’t agree. 200lb in any ratio is an extraordinary amount for a horse to carry and will be detrimental to their body. Fitness, high muscle etc doesn’t change the fact that it is a lot of weight
→ More replies (3)2
u/milquetoast2000 Jun 16 '26
Go comment that under men’s posts. A good portion of all men riding western are over 200lbs like over 50%. Almost all men 6ft and over will be hovering around 190-200 pounds without being overweight
7
u/Brilliant_Target9046 Jun 14 '26
And this is why I haven’t been on a horse in the last 15 years since I had multiple knee surgery and ballooned up with my weight ranging between 175 and 215… I’m terrified someone’s going to pull out a scale for me to prove my weight. I totally get keeping the Animal safe but I do miss feeling comfortable taking lessons. Truthfully I won’t even do trail rides anymore because of some of the signage that companies have posted. To be clear I’m not saying I was ever something close to professional… But I rode for quite a few years and I miss it.
10
u/HeatherJMD Jun 14 '26
I mean, obviously horses were carrying full grown men in plate armor into battle while wearing armor themselves, so there has to be some nuance to the 20% weight rule…
But I do think if someone is overweight they have a duty to be as fit as they are able to achieve before they get on a horse to make their burden as light as they can
29
u/Own_Faithlessness769 Jun 14 '26
It’s be fair it was probably really bad for those horses. But that’s not a huge concern when you’re putting the horse in a deadly situation anyway.
3
u/HeatherJMD Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Horses were very valuable, a knight’s horse would need to be highly trained to go into battle, so I don’t think they would sacrifice them lightly. But yeah, I imagine they didn’t prioritize animal welfare like we do
18
u/Mooshuchyken Jun 14 '26
Just to nerd out -
Destriers and coursers (common warhorses) were probably carrying 25% to be 30% of their weight in battle.
The big difference IMO - these horses were also only used in combat or in jousts. Knights had other horses for everyday travel and carrying stuff around. They were very valuable animals and medieval people were aware that using then too much reduced their ability to do their job. So much so that when traveling, warhorses were led, not ridden. Their heaviest loads were applied in short, high-intensity bursts rather than all-day work, which made it more sustainable.
And obviously both the warhorse and knight were better trained than the average horse and rider today. Warhorses took 4-5 years to mature and train.
Warhorses were only usable up to age 12-15. They frequently didn't make it that long -- due to injury or illness combined with a lack of veterinary care.
Modern horse owners want their horses to live 30+ years. Lesson barns are also using the horses much more than a destrier would have been used. So they have to be worried more about low-grade chronic stress injuries than a knight would be concerned with.
5
u/HeatherJMD Jun 14 '26
Yes, of course. We want to maximize the health span of every animal, just as we would like to for ourselves
3
u/Affectionate-Crow605 Jun 14 '26
How much did the men weigh at that time? They were likely much shorter than men are today in Western countries. So I would expect them to have weighed less also?
At the barn I used to ride at, I don't remember what their weight limit was, but they did have a couple bigger horses that larger men (200-230ish) were put on. They did a lot of company picnics, so there were some larger men going on short trail rides. They would not have allowed a 300+ lb man (or woman) to ride.
6
u/kmondschein Jun 15 '26
Medieval nobility could be quite large; they were better fed. But they also rode stallions. (Am a medieval historian.)
6
u/Mooshuchyken Jun 14 '26
Men maybe 140-180 lbs. Saddle, bridle, armor barding, maybe 50 lbs. Late medieval heavy plate was another 50 lbs.
Horses would be 14-15 hands I think early medieval, but more like 16 in the late medieval period when heavy plate was used.
1
5
u/Own_Faithlessness769 Jun 14 '26
Sure they were valuable but it was literally a life or death situation. Who cares if their horse is going to get back issues when you might both die in the battlefield today.
2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
I love how your historically correct answer is being downvoted.
2
u/HeatherJMD Jun 14 '26
🤷♀️ Your other comment got downvoted too, but I gave you an upvote so hopefully it’s at 1 now instead of 0 😆
5
u/Thequiet01 Jun 14 '26
I think one of the issues is that people think "overweight" means "unfit" and it doesn't at all. Overweight is a BMI category and BMI does not differentiate in the slightest between muscle and fat. So someone can have a ton of muscle and be very fit indeed and still be overweight or even obese in some cases.
→ More replies (1)2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
I ride my 15.2 Paint in full plate armor (which is not nearly as heavy as people think it is). But medieval saddles (like the one I use) were designed to distribute the weight. I also don't ride him for long in armor, just like knights didn't ride their warhorses until they had to.
2
u/ktgrok Jun 14 '26
I actually think a short person is easier on the horse than a tall one, at the same weight. Lower center of gravity means less shifting of weight and less throwing off the horse’s balance.
1
u/kmondschein Jun 16 '26
You’re not wrong. The ideal rider is my marfinoid ex with miles of leg and no torso…
2
u/Unlucky-Roof-4538 Jun 14 '26
so, in here we have a lot of discussion about skill vs weight...
But even then you should still have the 20% rule in mind, because, yes, even with an amazing seat and amazing balanze a rider might just be too heavy for a horse.
they‘re living, breathing animals, that aren‚t engineered to be ridden, just take a look at their skeleton. and if he weighs 230lbs (around 100 kg) you just need to take a look at what horse he will be riding. At my barn most of the horses are icelandics, and they are amazing, but many riders might be too heavy for them.
Also, the 20% rule is for a healthy, well muscled horse around it‘s ideal weight, with a good rider, and it includes weight of saddle etc.
All in all, nothing says that he shouldn‘t ride, it‘s just really important, especially with heavy riders to take a look at wich horse etc.
3
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 15 '26
except the horses used for the 20% study were not well muscled. That study was deeply flawed and now cited as a hard rule as a way of gatekeeping.
1
u/Unlucky-Roof-4538 Jun 15 '26
Sure, I may have not said that correctly, it‘s more of a rule of thumb, but here, We have no clue what the actual experience of the rider is, how fit the horse is, if the horse is overweight, if the tack is fitting, the breed and comformation of the horse.
Many horses in riding schools today are usually not that well muscled, as it takes a lot to keep up good musceling, just as in humans, and it‘s just not as easy to do in a lesson barn.
All in all, the rule is really not perfect, and there may be exeptions, but if nobody has a chance to judge horse, tack, rider, etc. then it‘s a rule of thumb you can go by.
3
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 15 '26
Sure. I’m about to post a looooooong thing mostly aimed at commenters here who consistently body shame and treat it as scientifically proven one size fits all. If I owned a lesson barn I’d use it as a guideline too bc it’s objective and saves me a lawsuit. And (as you said) a lot of lesson horses are not in great shape. I’m a heavy rider. I’m also one of 4 people allowed anywhere near my horse’s back and he’s in regular exercise including running sets without a rider on his back.
2
u/spanielgurl11 Jun 14 '26
Every barn I know with weight limit has it for a reason—they don’t have horses above a certain size. It’s not arbitrary. No living being can carry an unlimited amount of weight. We all have limits.
2
u/Mediocre_Holiday5753 Jun 14 '26
I don’t understand what people are trying to achieve here. Is it to allow heavier people to ride or to ensure that horses don’t have people that are too heavy riding them?
My view is that, there has to be guidance and that guidance tends to be no more than 20% of horse weight for a rider and tack.
Does someone who is over that weight ratio have a right to ride, no. Does the horse owner have a right to say no, absolutely yes.
BMI wouldn’t work, it is about how heavy the sack of potatoes is on top of the horse not its dimensions. How well balanced it is and the what activity is important. BUT, the welfare of the horse is the most important thing.
I’m a big guy and a horse owner, I know how I ride and know I am within the 20% of my horse but she is 17 hands and a draught horse.
I wouldn’t let anyone ride her who I hadn’t seen ride and who was outside the 20%. That’s my decision and I couldn’t give a damn if me not letting you ride my horse makes you feel bad.
1
1
u/Imaginary-Cattle3643 Jun 18 '26
It’s been established that draft horses actually can bear less weight than say, a quarter horse. If you want studies quoted, you can look this up yourself. Draft horses are built to pull, not carry weight.
1
2
u/ImmaTastyKikiRoll Jun 14 '26
It’s not body shaming though??? Someone could be a world renowned athlete, and if they’ve never ridden a horse they will 100% be jackhammering the horse’s spine just as much as someone of the same weight who’s never walked into a gym because they don’t have the learned coordination or balance. It could also be the lesson barns just don’t have horses of large build- only medium to smaller build. These businesses toe (hopefully) a delicate balance between profit/loss and the horse’s welfare. Lessons are profit, wear and tear is loss. Heavier riders create more wear and tear thus greater loss in maintenance and frequency of use. A horse isn’t a balance beam. It isn’t a bike. It isn’t a car. It isn’t a tool. It’s a living, feeling animal. It doesn’t come with reinforced metal joints designed to load-bear heavy weight.
Given you suggested your friend try western I’m thinking the barn with the weight limit was English jumping? In English really big horse’s joints statistically breakdown faster from the jumping and cost more to maintain, thus being a larger loss business wise- so most barns stick to medium and do a weight limit for longevity. In English a large rider, in a small saddle, on a longer backed horse is strain on the spine while they learn to post and canter. In western you will see a lot of very big riders on tiny horses but those horses aren’t used for jumping. And the style is all sitting, at a very slow pace, in a very large saddle that evenly distributes the weight across a much shorter spine- thus rarely if ever a weight limit.
So again it’s not body/weight shaming, it’s: animal welfare, biomechanics, physics, discipline (as in style of riding) and management of profit/loss.
1
2
u/tailsntrails Jun 15 '26
I have two students who are near the top of our weight range. One is a tween, the other an adult male. Totally different body compositions; tween on the "fluffy" side and male is athletic. He may weigh a little more than her. Both are advanced beginners. The way the horses move for the man vs the tween is drastically different and I am 100% sure it's because the tween has very little muscle tone and is, for lack of better words... kind of just floppy. The man has far better balance. The horses absolutely work harder carrying her than they do carrying him.
2
u/Life-Memory9880 Jun 15 '26
This is such a complicated debate, and I mean that in a good way. I think for ease, I understand why places set weight limits. It’s easiest and likely safest for their herd to just set a number and a hard line.
The complex answer is yes, your abilities, balance, skill, etc does absolutely make a difference. I’m a well balanced advanced rider, my ability to self balance is going feel very different to a horse compared to someone the same weight who is a total beginner with no self balance skills. It’s like the difference of having someone lean on you vs picking up someone who’s dead weight. That’s a differentiation that you can decide for your own individual horse, BUT when you’re trying to be an ethical equine business, I also understand why they draw a hard line in the sand.
2
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 15 '26
Freaking this! (Though I think body shamed women have it a little worse than men as far as who is being gatekept). I just made a LONG post on this topic. I understand a lesson barn needing to set a limit somewhere, and 200 is an easy number to pick. But where I get my biscuits burnt is when I see "experienced" riders (almost always women) getting on their high horse (pun intended) and acting like unless you're 150lbs or less it's animal cruelty to ride.
2
u/Casulex Jun 18 '26
If the horse has a rounded back, is in shape and can carry a rider while staying collected on a loose rein then it has a higher carrying power than a regular schoolhorse
7
u/Impossible-Taro-2330 Jun 14 '26
I agree, OP.
I have been riding, owning, and showing horses for over 50 years. I'm not in that "over the limit" weight zone. Yet, I have known - and owned - many horses with back issues owned by myself and people significantly smaller than me.
I think this should absolutely be evaluated on a horse-by-horse basis.
Blanket statements are nothing more than fat shaming. Many horse people are notorious for indulging in this, for sport.
Let the downvotes commence!
2
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 16 '26
I’m just amused that the same people who will treat the 20% “rule” as gospel “because it’s about the horses, not your ego” will give their expensive show horse calming supplements rather than proper turnout pasture time. (And then sell them off the second they have even the slightest kissing spine rather than take the time to build up and rehabilitate the back. Show me a TB over 15 that DOESN’T have some level of KS.)
2
u/FreedomFlyer0214 Jun 14 '26
I'm 5'6'' and 230lbs, I get it. I've also been riding since I was 10 and very underweight. With 11 years of experience in riding, I know my weight in the saddle and what I do while riding. But, the thing is, I ride giant/chunky horses that I know can hold my weight comfortably. The thing with weight among riders started as equestrians trying to keep horses from getting their backs hurt from spending too much time with "oversized loads" on their backs. But it spiraled, and I can definitely see how it gets ridiculous, especially in more populated stables. However, barns having weight limits doesn't feel inherently "discriminatory," as sometimes, it's because no horse they have available for riding can comfortably hold more weight. I draw the line at enforcing those limits when one is bringing their own horse(s). Unless they see that the horse is exhibiting signs of back/joint pain, they have no reason to be concerned. The logic behind it is good-intentioned, but in practice, it simply doesn't always apply. Not every person is a skinny legend, same as how not every horse is a thoroughbred with fragile toothpick legs (I've ridden thoroughbreds in the past in my skeleton-core days, I can say that). Sometimes, horses are built like tanks and they can hold a lot more than just 200lbs. Evidently, since the girlie I ride is huge (more to love).
6
u/sigbacc Jun 14 '26
Again, my husband is 70kg and when I do a backbend, he can handstand on me and I hardly feel anything, even in a handstand he is light as a feather But he is also multiple times world champion in vaulting. So maybe an exception
But I agree. People can be a light rider - unfortunately we set à metric based on weight cause it's à huge risk to the horse to put someone on based on trust me bro
→ More replies (2)
7
u/KillerSparks Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
He's making the decision to weigh 230lbs. He's decided that he wants to work out that much and likes that lifestyle. A side effect of that lifestyle is that he weighs too much to ride horses. That's perfectly okay. You can't have everything in life. If he wants to ride horses that badly, he can stop working out so much and lose weight.
Still riding a horse even though you weigh too fucking much because you've justified it to yourself is incredibly selfish and is still abuse. Thinking that the material the weight is made has any bearing on how much the horse can carry is insane. 230lbs is too much whether it's fat or muscle or wood. Sometimes there's just things that you (or someone) don't get to do. Oh well. Move on.
The 198lb beginner should also be entertained with extreme caution, and I'm a big advocate for a 200lb total including tack, rather than 200lbs of person. Trying to justify a person who is 30lbs over the limit by using a minimal amount of experience compared to someone who is literally touching the line, and may not make it depending on the day, is also wildly unreasonable.
A flexible guideline would only take the limit down for inexperienced people. Heavier people would only be able to walk, for example. There has to be some upper limit that is a hard line because there comes a point when how it's carried doesn't matter, and the limit is usually 200lbs.
There is a limit. He is over that limit. Therefore, it is currently unethical for him to ride a horse. Point blank.
→ More replies (25)-7
1
u/neuroticmare Jun 14 '26
I both run my own riding program AND work for someone else's. Both have horses that can accommodate your friend! Every horse? No, at least one. The timing is good here because I used my Percheron/qh in a lesson for the first time the afternoon for a taller/maybe heavier rider and she is still a bit green for a green rider so it was a bit of a hot mess. My rider was apologizing but it was on me. My other horse she usually rides was under weather and she also comments how cute my mare is so we tried it.
At any rate, there are a lot of nuances when it comes to riding and skill and once a person is in place in the riding program I think a competent trainer could see that. Schools with a cutoff most likely don't have horses for it or maybe tack, but in my experience, missing out on some great students.
3
u/Mooshuchyken Jun 14 '26
Yeah I live in Texas, a lot of people here are overweight. Many barns have a couple of draft or draft crosses for bigger folks to ride.
You can also just ask. If one barn can't accommodate, they might know someone who can.
2
u/kmondschein Jun 14 '26
No idea why you're getting downvoted.
3
u/neuroticmare Jun 15 '26
I always get downvoted when I mention in a that I accommodate heavier riders in my program. I've been overweight since I was about 7 years old and just now have been losing thanks to glp-1s. I was stronger and fitter when I was riding 2-3 horses a day than I am now even though I'm the lightest now that I've been in my adult life (still have about 50 to lose). A lot of horse people think they see it as a welfare issue but I also know that most people cannot accurately guess a person's weight or a horses weight or size to even guess their 20 percent rule if they tried to use it. You've got to know your horses and your riders.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Goal147 Jun 14 '26
I used to board at a barn that had a hack line. The owner kept a couple draft crosses for large people. Never had to turn away anyone for size.
1
u/Raubkatzen Jun 14 '26
When we went on our honeymoon in Mexico, I was really excited that the resort we were staying at offered riding on the beach. It's always been a desire of mine. Well, we get there and they have a 180# weight limit. I am 200 pounds, 5'9", and have been riding since I was 5. I am almost 50 now. No amount of, I ride better than any of those tourist, got me my ride on the beach. 😒
1
1
u/Affectionate-Box5874 Jun 15 '26
You dont mention what horses are available or what l weight different horses can bear. Certainly don't shame anyone for their body type but also don't over tax a horse regardless of what "type" of weight the potential rider carries.
2
u/JustAnOrdinaryGirl07 Multisport Jun 15 '26
I have a rather hot take, you can take it or leave it. A good 200 lbs rider will eventually hurt a 950 lbs horse, and unbalanced 200 lbs rider will just hurt them more. I beleive 20% is the absolute limit.
I'd compare it to a person. Say I can hypothetically only lift 40 lbs safely. 50 lbs dumbells will hurt me, 50 lbs dumbells filled with splashing water will just hurt me more.
3
u/kmondschein Jun 15 '26
But you can build up to 50…
2
u/JustAnOrdinaryGirl07 Multisport Jun 15 '26
Horses aren't built like that though. There's a safe limit for a fit, healthy horse and that is 20%. If the horse is not fit, it should not be carrying 20%.
3
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 16 '26
The 20% rule comes from a flawed study and should be a guideline not a law.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Morethyme Jun 16 '26
The weight limits are for the horse, not the person. An average sized trail or school horse carrying a heavy load for more than 20 minutes affects the horse’s whole body. This wear and tear shortens the horse’s usable life. It is not a women’s issue it is a humane issue. Your big bodied heavy people can ride draft horses, so what’s the big deal? Solve the problem without animosity.
1
u/Verzuchter Jun 17 '26
Weight is weight. Body composition doesn’t matter. But the right way is ratiod weight limit.
2
u/Lizardgirl25 Horse Lover Jun 14 '26
No you have a huge point my dad was 200 but had experience from riding as a teen and child and was an active athlete I had no issues sticking him on my horses I worried more about sticking someone 160 pound on my horses that had no idea what they where doing.
1
u/Scared_Echo6265 Jun 14 '26
Thank you for posting this. Body composition is the key to understanding how leverage affects downward force. The smaller more centered mass of a muscled rider will have less additional downward load created than a rider of equal weight but greater mass. Anyone arguing this is either ignorant or just self serving.
2
1
u/ahauntedsong Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Respectfully I think it’s naivety to continue to think every space should be flexible for heavier people. And if they don’t clearly it’s fat shaming. Like what? When maybe the barns don’t have horses that can carry that weight? It’s not like it’s professionals coming in to ride, you need a horse that won’t get injured having 230/250/280 pounds learn to trot on them. This is common for even trail rides, so I don’t know why a more refined area of horse riding should suddenly be more lenient?
Also the guy should know that with weight lifting it’s a risk to damaging your body if you do it incorrectly. Are we not the weights to a horse?
Noting that everything involving physics has a weight limit: amusement park rides, elevators, glass walks. There’s weight limits to riding a freakin elephant, so why is a horse different?
1
u/crepuscule22 Jun 15 '26
agree with your point completely but just throwing in a little fact you might be interested in: despite their size, elephants are worse-equipped than horses to carry weight on their backs because of the shape of their spines. that's why elephant-riding cannot be done ethically, even if you removed all other abuse in keeping/training them.
1
u/ahauntedsong Jun 16 '26
Yes, but then there are horses with deep backs which carrying too much weight for too long can contribute to.
1
u/crepuscule22 Jun 16 '26
i am very much on the same page as you when it comes to not overloading horses. my baseline for dealing with animals is that their well-being is paramount, and they should get way more choice/autonomy than most people give them. was more just sharing the fact about elephants.
1
-4
u/Electrical-Ask1246 Jun 14 '26
In all actual honesty, (domesticated) horses original purpose was to carry people or things. People just need to be mindful of the weight they put on a horses back. Meaning, if you weight 250, don’t pick the heaviest made saddle. Try to pick a lighter one, and don’t pack saddlebags with stones. Like you said, if you’re heavy set, don’t ride a paso. Look for a draft cross or mule.
17
u/snow_ponies Jun 14 '26
It was actually to pull things, a totally different use of their body
→ More replies (1)10
u/Thequiet01 Jun 14 '26
You really want to look at things like length of back, not breed. Some draft crosses are quite long and so struggle more with weight than a smaller shorter barreled horse would.
2
1
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 16 '26
This. I think a large problem in the horse world is that we baby animals who have been bred for thousands of years to do a job. Now it’s a luxury pastime, not a life necessity. And as with any luxury hobby, it can bring out a level of unpleasant elitism. Here though because animals are involved, it allows people to wrap that elitist attitude in a “it’s for the horses” cloak of superiority. These are the same people who will keep a horse stalled for hours on end so long as the barn has a heated, wood paneled tack room. And then trade up as soon as they want to jump bigger fences. Not advocating for animal abuse… but horses are a lot tougher than people realize.
2
u/Electrical-Ask1246 Jun 16 '26
Yeah, I in no way advocate for abuse. It’s just people don’t pick the right horse for their needs. It’s like when a new rider picks the hottest horse available.
2
u/Actus_Rhesus Polo Jun 16 '26
I’m going to rescue an OTTB. OMG WHY WONT IT STOP????? WHY DOES IT GO FASTER WHEN I PULL ON MY REINS?????
0
u/CloddishNeedlefish Jun 14 '26
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen someone so boldly wrong. This would be funny if you weren’t advocating for harm to animals.
3
418
u/Own_Faithlessness769 Jun 14 '26
I agree but I also feel like if I ran a barn, it would be much much easier to set a hard weight limit than it would be to tell individuals I’ve assessed their body composition and skill and decided they can’t ride my horses.
If you were a business owner who needs to balance equine welfare with running a public business how would you manage telling people they can or can’t ride? I’m genuinely curious if anyone has a flexible way of doing it that doesn’t open them up to discrimination claims.