Re: Horse/Rider Weight at Tevis

Duncan Fletcher (dfletche@gte.net)
Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:43:33 -0800

This is interesting. Reference my post of yesterday, my wife came up with
notes. It was 30% of fit body weight of a conditioned horse. You have to
subtract the amount of overweight of the horse to obtain fit body weight.
This came from Jerry Washburn, DVM. Unfortunately, he did not define fit
body weight in terms of conditioning scores. At first thought, what Susan
posted seems to contradict this, but on further reflection, I think not.
There are two different issues here. The first is having enough energy
stores to complete the ride. This is what Susan's research discusses. The
second, is the "structural" strength of the horse. This is what Dr.
Washburn was referring to. Actually most riders in Susan's study carried
less and the heaviest only exceeded the 30% by a small margin.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net

----------
> From: Susan F. Evans <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Horse/Rider Weight at Tevis
> Date: Saturday, January 25, 1997 2:52 PM
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Well, it turns out this is the subject of my thesis project, so thought
> you might be interested in some of the horse/rider weight ratios we
> collected on approximately 450 horses the last two years at Tevis.
>
> The average weight carried by successful Tevis completers was 20.43% of
> the horse's body weight. The average weight carried was 181.48 pounds.
>
> The lightest load carried successfully was 14.9%, the heaviest load
> successfully carried was 30.71%.
>
> The average weight carried by Top Tenners was 180.7 pounds, and the
> average rider weight ratio was 20.3%. The Top Ten horses averaged 892
> pounds.
>
> There was no statistical difference in weights carried between the
> horses that finished and those that were pulled. There is also no
> statistical indication that horses carrying less weight finish any
> faster---as a matter of fact, several of the Top Ten finishers in both
> years were among the heaviest riders.
>
> What turns out DID make a significant difference was how much body fat
> the horse was carrying during the ride---or body condition score as has
> been previously discussed in earlier threads. Horses that were scored
> as being very thin AND were carrying heavy weights consistently turned
> out to be the first pulled. Thin horses carrying lighter weights were
> pulled next often---they on average made it farther down the trail, but
> almost every one was pulled before the finish.
>
> Horses that were in good body condition---no ribs sticking out, no
> pointy hips and spinal processes showing---were by far the most
> successful group of horses to finish the Tevis trail and in these
> horses, how much weight the horse was carrying made no difference as to
> how well they placed. During data collection at Wendell Robie Park, I
> remember looking at several horses who were past Tevis winners/Top
> Tenners/Haggin Cup winners (and were again that year) and noticed none
> of them looked like what you'd expect in an endurance horse---they were
> all hard as rocks, but none of them were ribby-looking at all. A few
> looked downright chunky.
>
> The conclusions drawn from at least this particular study was that
> horses are capable of carrying weights in excess of 30% of their own
> body weight for 100 miles, IF the horse has sufficient body fat to
> supply the ongoing demands for metabolic fuel. The thinner a horse is,
> the quicker he is going to run out of energy in direct proportion to how
> much weight he has to carry.
>
> BTW, there'll be a complete article on this project in this spring's
> Tevis Forum that will include more specifics and hopefully explain the
> differences between "too thin" and "not too thin" a little better.
>
> Hope this helps some of you.
>
> Susan Evans