Am I too heavy to ride?

I really feel for you because obviously you want to ride and realise that you are not 'fat' as such, but due to your height, build and muscle, your weight is above riding school limits. However when it comes to riding, weight is weight regardless if it comes from muscle or fat.

As much as I would love to reassure you and say that it would be ok to ride, my priority has to go with the welfare of the horse. Yes, there are big horses out there, but just because a horse is big, it doesn't mean it can carry that much weight. My late horse was as big as they come, he was a 16.2hh shire x tb who was built like an absolute tank. However, I would not have allowed someone of 17 stone to ride him, I wouldn't have allowed anyone over 14 stone to ride him. Big horses often have joint issues which need to be considered as they are already carrying their own excess weight which puts extra strain on both their joints and other organs. This is the reason why heavy horses have a much shorter life span than smaller ponies. It is not uncommon for shetland ponies to live into their 30s, but it would be very rare to find a shire horse of that age.

I agree that some riding schools do have higher weight limits, but I would question their motivations for doing so. Is this about attracting paying customers, or is it about the welfare of the horse? I would have a look at the Cumbrian Heavy Horse website. They only have big horses (shires, Clydesdales and suffolk punches), all of whom are very fit, but they still insist on a 14 stone weight limit. I'm sure there is a section on their website which explains why this is.

There are lots of ways to enjoy horses without riding. Caring for them is very rewarding as it helping at shows. Or even driving might be something you could do?
 
Would just say that BMI is a wide band and can be misleading. But I was told to stay at the mid point by my GP. The NHS these days does have support and suggestions for weight loss and people on NR have done the couch to 5 k programme.

I didnt know that heavy horses are not able to carry heavy riders. But that makes sense, There are heavy horses on our yard and they are driven, Mostly for land maintenance but yesterday we saw they were giving Christmas treat coach rides. (Note. The publicity pic for these rides does not show the heavy horses. Nor the same carriage)
 
I would have put a 17 stone rider - not beginner - on Jim, he was a 16.3 RID and built to carry weight. However he was also a lad who wouldn't carry a rider if he wasn't happy with them and as such if they made him uncomfortable they wouldn't have stayed on for long!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jane&Ziggy
Nica said:
Also what do tall men ride if weight limits are so low?
Click to expand...

I'm tall (6.1) and currently just over 15st. While I sometimes have a hard time finding horses I can ride I have never received comments about being too heavy or needing to lose weight, which I understand that women and girls quite often receive.

I've more often received compliments on having long legs. This is ironic as I'd prefer being able to use my lower leg without bending it back!
 
Long legs are always good. It isnt just weight that matters. If I put on weight, my thighs bulk up which lifts my leg. You can see pics of men on Icelandic horses with their feet almost touching the ground. That is fine but having to squat on a horse which I do if my weight goes up, is not.
In UK there is also the question of stirrup length. I like to ride and to hack with the stirrups long. But it is a minority choice on Ella as she is (said to be) a bumpy ride. I dont jump so I dont have short stirrup skills.

As for bending your leg back, why is that? We were taught have our heels under our hips and to use schooling whips behind the leg. So isnt that the same for everyone?
 
@Skib, long legs do have advantages, such as lowering your centre of gravity. It's that I often feel like I want to put my leg back to put in on, which doesn't improve my balance. It takes an effort of will not to - I guess it's instinctual, and comes from the tradition of giving pony club kicks with your heel that I grew up with, and which are only possible if your legs don't dangle under your horse's belly!

On first getting proper lessons I learnt, as you say, to keep some weight in my heels and use my lower leg as a whole, squeezing (gently) rather than kicking, backed up as you say with a schooling whip.

It's interesting how easily notions of 'correct' riding blend with damaging ideas of the 'correct' body for riding.. and it's heartening to see how good riders of all shapes and sizes adopt and adapt their riding accordingly.
 
I have the same problem @Calder. I'm 5'7 and my horse is a quite finely built 15 hands so my legs don't touch his sides below mid calf (I've ridden 13hh natives that took up my leg better). It is a real effort of wills to resist the urge to swing my leg back to put my heel against his side. I am supposed to use my calf instead. Also my RI has me riding in spurs for my lessons, which I never thought I would. However they do enable me to turn my foot out and touch his side with the ball of the spur rather than drastically altering my lower leg position.

The other issue I have is getting a saddle to fit both my short backed horse (17" max) and my legs. That's a height issue rather than weight though obviously.

I saw a program or read an article on eventing ages ago, where they mentioned that men have an advantage over women because of their physical shape and lower centre of gravity. First time in my life I'd been pleased to have a lack of boobage and rather muscly legs!

In answer to the OPs question - when my OH wanted to start riding we couldn't find a riding school that would cater for him. I think he weighed about 15 stone at the time. We ended up buying him a horse - passported as ID x - sturdy but not a heavy horse. But of course he didn't have to do anything like the work a RS horse has to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Calder
Charles Harris has a diagram showing how the male pelvic bones differ from the female and affect seat in the saddle. Confess I dont really understand. But I did notice the jumpers at Olympia horse show on tv when we were watching were all men.
 
@Skib my saddler says there's been a lot of research on rider pelvises and how they affect seat and saddle choice and it turns out it's nowhere near as clear cut as male or female, or even length of leg.

As for being mostly men competing in the show jumping at Olympia, I suspect that's less to do with pelvis etc and far more to do with men being, in general, more competitive and - dare I say it - more inclined to move a horse on if it doesn't do the job and isn't getting them places. In the past there have been many world class showjumpers though, likewise eventers and dressage riders. In a couple of years there may be a lot more women showjumping at Olympia, it alldepends on who has the horses at the time.
 
I remember Geoff Billington at Olympia on It’s Otto, winning repeatedly despite being on the heavier side. Not everyone likes to see a large rider - perhaps due to that boring dispute over whether or not riding is a sport and therefore whether riders are athletes - and I do remember sarky remarks about his weight and riding style. He still won, though.

Dressage places a much higher premium on appearance. The rider is supposed to embody a certain elegance, not just get the job done as in jumping. It’s still more about the horse than the rider, and while it might be nice to see a wider range of body types it’s great that men and women are in the same space for once, without the usual stuff about their supposedly natural capabilities and tendencies keeping them separate.

In reference to the OP - it’s a sensitive subject, and gets more complicated the more you look at it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huggy, Trewsers and carthorse
newrider.com
Top Bottom
Back