I don't know if I have any real advice, other than to say I know how you feel. I'm 5'6" 235lbs at the moment. I used to weigh 212 and at one point made it down to 189 when I was doing low-carb. Somehow I just can't keep the diet going like I should.

My current horse is probably about 1100 lbs, 14.3-15 hands. BUT she is also 18 years old and sometimes has some soundness issues, so if she's having an "off" day I really beat myself up. Then other times, she's like a fire-breathing dragon and she doesn't seem to notice me up there at all! What's been driving me crazy lately is I have this fantasy of getting a second horse. So I can rotate them and ride nearly every day and not feel guilty like I'm going to wear out my single horse. But all the horses around here are so small. I mean, you would be lucky if they are 14.3, 900 lbs.

So I don't know. A lot of people say they don't believe in the 20% rule. And there truly ARE a lot of folks that are normal-to larger sized riding small horses. Especially in the "real world." (A lot of western performance horses/riders fall into that category). In the real world, people swear I'm not too big to ride. And I see a lot of tall people (not necessarily overweight, but they are tall so they are on the heavier side just because of their frame) and they are riding horses where their legs hang below their bellies. When I got my mare, she was owned by a lady who is quite tall, over 6 feet. And I thought she looked a bit big on her because her legs hung below the belly. So when I first saw photos of ME on the same horse, I was scared I was going to look like a cow on her back. But I was surprised that I looked pretty well matched with her. I mean, I wish I was thinner (and I'm working on it again) but I don't look as bad as I thought I would.

The wider the horse, the more they take up your leg as well. I had a stocky Mustang once that probably didn't make 14.3 but he was wide and I never looked oversized on him.

You know, if you love the horse, just go with it for a while and see how it works out. You might not be too big for him at all (and if you are, it will probably be apparent to you over time). But a heavier, considerate rider, might actually be kinder on a horse than a lighter rider that rides like a bat outta hell, if you know what I mean! I am always very aware of the footing and speed and only go faster than a walk if I feel like it is safe for my horse. I've seen a lot of smaller riders really not give a hoot about galloping a horse through rocks or poor footing. I think the rider caring about their horse helps a lot.

I don't arena ride at all, I just ride trails. :smile:

 

I would just like to point out that you don't HAVE to ride your horse, just because your trainer thinks he's ready to be ridden. She could ride him. Or someone else could ride him. Or he could be a horse that isn't ridden, and you could do lots of fun trick training and that sort of thing.

 

Don't forget to add the weight of saddle and tack. Horse breed is important also. Some carry more, some carry less.


I know! Jog along side the horse until you reach a weight you feel comfortable riding with. Simple.

 

I think the percentage rule really isn't as hard and fast as it sounds, and according to trainers I've heard from, it has a lot of influencing factors. If your horse is fit and you have good balance, then 20% is nothing.

I've also heard that it's more like 30% for casual riding, and 20% for competitive/performance riding (assuming a reasonably fit horse and decent rider). Also depending on the horse's build - QH are generally pretty sturdy and short backed. Hell, a famous 14.1 hand cutting QH had a 6'3 (or 6'2") rider/trainer and swamped the competition.



You're also supposed to add the weight of tack and any extra fat the horse has as well, for the record.


But if he seems to ride okay with you and you don't mind, I don't see why trails would be a problem. They aren't exactly hard work.

 

Fact-check myself: it was Smart Little Lena I'm thinking of, and he was 13.3 hands. As you can see, he couldn't care less that his rider was "too big"

 

I don't believe in the 20% rule. But your horse is about the same size as Bandit, and you are 60 lbs heavier than I was at my peak. You'll be at 30% - about 270 total over 900 lbs.

Based on my own experience, you are at the upper level of acceptable. I rode Cowboy at around 30% of his body weight. He could do it. We went for up to 3 hours on trails, mostly walking but sometimes going faster. Our trails aren't level or smooth. He did it but struggled with balance in the rougher spots. Didn't show signs of pain ever but he was really working hard.

Bandit was ridden hard and fast for 10-15 mile training runs carrying a guy who weighed "265 in his socks" - so also about 300 lbs total on his then 800 lb body (he's about 850-875 now). That was 37.5%! He also did it, but he braced his back like a steel I-beam at a trot, and frequently moved as if his front end and back end were totally disconnected:

I've got a lot of pictures from when I first got him like that, where he moved his legs completely disjointed between front and back. We've been together for 5 years now and he doesn't do that any more. He's learned to trust me with his back and all four legs move normally in normal gaits.

Based on that, I'd guess you and your horse would be happier if your horse was a bigger horse. However, it can be done if you make a conscious effort to ride light. As an example....someone riding a trot in two point reduces peak impact pressure on the horse's back 20% over either the sitting trot or posting. That means a 240 lb rider creates the same peak pressure on the horse as a 192 lb rider! Big difference.

If you go for it, do short rides to build up your horse's strength. The back supports weight, not by bone but by muscle mass & strength. Just as we can jog longer or lift more if we work up to it, a horse can carry more weight further if they do short work and then build up.

But I think a 1000+ lb horse would be able to do it better with less risk of injury.

 

Not sure how long Smart Little Lena was ridden competitively, or to what extent he was ridden after he retired. He suffered a stroke in 2010 and was euthanized at age 31.

The TYPE of riding one does is huge in how much a horse can carry. Trail riding will depend on the type of trails and duration. And a well balanced rider will truly ride "lighter" than a badly balanced one. Horses compensate for weight by leaving their feet on the ground longer and taking shorter strides - just as we do when carrying a heavy weight. Low flat strides will be easier on a horse than high, collected strides.

Saddle weight distribution also is a factor - for the horse's back muscles, not for its legs.

Our Circle Y (full sized western), our Abetta (what I normally use with Bandit) and my English jumping saddle (Bates CC). Sold the Bates years ago. If I found a full sized western saddle I liked as much as my Abetta, I'd switch. But I haven't.

 

I'll add a friend's favorite ranch horse was an 800 lb stallion who sired Trooper. My friend weighed 200 lbs - a bigger, stockier guy than I am - and rode with extra gear. The stallion would do 50 miles day and then be ready to go again. Desert and mountains. His sons estimated he rode the stallion 25-30,000 miles before putting him down for cancer. He said the first 10 miles on the stallion were the toughest. By 20 miles, the stallion would settle down. The stallion's favorite activity? Working rough cattle in wild country.

 

He is now finishing basic ground training. He is looking so good my trainer wants to keep working with him to advance his training..

I didn't read any responses...
What I bolded jumps at me...
Of course your trainer wants to keep working with him to advance his training = money in the trainers pocket.
Make certain you are in to this for once it starts....

The 20% rule to me is very bendable...
If you are not a quiet rider, bumping and bouncing all over the place...then any horse would have more difficulty handling your weight astride.
If you are a quiet rider who rides in unison and as a partner to the horse, then toss the 20% rule to the side some...
Much also has to do with the build of the horse...all those things and many more need to be taken into consideration not just a mathematical equation..
:runninghorse2:...

 

I have two daughters about 14 months apart. The oldest is more slight framed than the youngest. When they were both around 1 and 2 years they weighed about exactly the same on the scales. But to carry them, one felt twice as heavy as the other and tired be about twice as fast. So yes, the rider does make a difference. A slumping rider at 20% might be too much.

 

If my math is correct, you're coming in at about 27% of the horse's weight, not counting tack. You also mention physical issues and that "most " of them have been corrected. Are you talking about something that would affect his health if he were carrying, lets say, 30% of his weight? How are the trails? If it is so that a balanced or unbalanced can can affect the % of weight a horse can carry, then for surely so can the trail's difficulty. Then, there's the matter of length: length of time and distance. My suggestion, get a bigger horse.

 

Listen to the horse. Sore after riding? Stiff after riding? There are a number of ways a horse can tell you the load is too much. And rather than different breeds, it is more individual whether a horse can carry more of less weight comfortably. Some narrow, wiry horses have great muscle strength, some bulky horses, although appearing muscular, aren't really that strong. I know in the human world I have seen people who looked small and not very muscular have great natural strength and larger people being pretty average strength wise.

 

Yes, I had the same issues when I returned to riding, I was already 50 and had put on some weight.I hae ridded for 35 years and have a light, well balanced seat. Some said 20, some said 25 and some said 30. Since I don't jump, run barrels or other type activities - mostly mosey around the arena and walk down the river bottom trails, I thought 25 would be a good target. Bought myself a 6 year old, 16 hand, 1200 pound appy that was dead broke, well within the "range". At 5'7" and 230 we covered many trail miles. She developed hock issues and is doing fine now that they have fused. She is cinchy and has hip issues, always wonder if it is my weight that has caused it.

 

I've heard that if you are well centered, experienced, weight (without going to extremes) should not be an issue. Good luck!

 

It is just that though. The horse is part of the equation and not just his weight/size but his bone and conformation count.

So many think just get a bigger horse but then end up with a long, weak backed 1400 to 1600 pound cross that won't hold up to the weight.

As bsms points out his experience look at his horse. Short backed, strong and good bone.