Posted on 03/25/2013 1:37:01 PM PDT by DogByte6RER
Plague of the overweight riders who are too heavy for their horses
• Only one in 20 riders are within the optimum weight for their horse
• A heavy load can mean back pain, lameness and bad behaviour in horses
• Vet guidelines advise that riders weigh less than 10 per cent of their mount
• Weighing more than 15 per cent of horse's weight poses health risks
• Research is published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour
Horses are the latest victims of the obesity crisis as they take the burden of their overweight riders, experts have warned.
A study found a third of recreational riders were too obese for their mounts, leaving the animals at risk of health problems such as back pain and lameness.
They can also develop behavioural problems, such as bucking, rearing and problems following commands.
Hayley Randle, one of the scientists behind the research, said: ‘People tend to think horses are such big animals they must be okay, and not to take notice of the weight issue of riders. But the health impact on the horse can be quite extreme, quite quickly.’
Published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, the study assessed 152 horses and their adult riders from stables across Devon and Cornwall.
Guidelines set by vets state that riders should weigh less than 10 per cent of the weight of their horse. But researchers from Duchy College in Cornwall found that just 5 per cent of the riders passed the test.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Hmmmmmm ... other than going on a diet, another solution to this problem; get a FATTER horse! (heh)
I’m 5’ 10” and sit at a beefy 258. I wouldn’t even think of riding a horse smaller than a Clydesdale. A Percheron would probably be better.
I charge plagiarism. Other than a few of the comparative percentages, I think I saw this same report about British sex. :-)
Oooh, what a big, random sample! Let's generalize this over the entire population of horse owners/riders, worldwide!!!
What did John Wayne ride in all those western movies? He was a big man.
Wasn’t that the horses Moochelle was riding
Plague of over weight government!
These kids are already way out of the proper weight standard ratios to their horses ... I expect their horses will have short lives.
He was certainly tall... 6’2” or 6’4” depending on your google-fu. Ex-football player... Dunno... They never really mention his weight. During most of his cowboy roles, he was still fairly lean. Probably around the 210-220 range would be my guess.
I’m a bunch shorter but a full sack of potatoes heavier.
Not a good copy - but the original caption was: "The Body Beautiful: What Three Months' Riding Can Do"
from Thelwell Country
A 10 percent rule I think is silly. Cobs and ponies can carry more weight, as my instructor says "they're like ants". I have very short legs and can ride a pretty short pony, they don't seem to mind my weight. Normally I ride big TBs and warmbloods.
Also, there are too many variables - saddle, pads, and riding ability. A well balanced but heavier rider is much easier for a horse to carry than a lighter weight rider who is flopping all over the place. If a horse is sound and not in distress, I don't see the problem.
I rode my 16.1 hh TB mare for 13 years before retiring her at age 27.
John Wayne was a big man, and they chose larger horses for him to ride, so that he didn’t look like a giant onscreen.
However, even is his later years when he wasn’t as fit, he didn’t weigh as much as a lot of women in my local Walmart. He put on heft in the belly, but the rest of his frame was wasting from the cancers.
We have a Percheron/Morgan cross. She took many a huntsman who had not missed many meals over fences in the hunt field. She’s retired now, but still sound as a dollar.
The American quarter horse and the Tennessee walking horse, among others, average about 1,000 to 1,200 pounds. That means no one who weighs more than 100 to 120 pounds should ride them. Can that be right?
How about a Clydesdale?
If the sample were truly random, that sample size is good enough to give a margin of error of only +/- 8% at a 95% confidence level. That is, the sample matches the population of the area the samples were drawn from, within +/- 8% 19 times out of 20. You’re quite right in saying that the results cannot be generalized beyond that area — and certainly not worldwide.
Of course, there could be a great many other problems with the methodology. However, the results are credible, because we know that the general population is getting bigger faster than the average horse.
Wow, I guess cowboys were smaller than I thought, or these experts are idiots.
“Wilbur! Get off my back!” Mr. Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.