My Top 5 “Wellbeing & Performance” Staples That Are Actually Problematic

My top 5 items that exist in the horse world supposedly to improve well being or performance whereas in actual fact they’re problematic from a physical therapy, exercise/performance, and welfare perspective.

🐎1. Horse Walkers – Can induce stress responses, because horses are prey animals forced to move in an artificial, confined environment — often isolated from their herd, with little control over the situation. The design (partitions, overhead tracks, limited sightlines) may trigger a predator-prey stress mechanism, increasing physiological stress. One study found horses display physical and behavioural indicators of stress on walkers, especially if alone. The immobilised, confined experience activates stress reactions and anxiety. We are trading natural biomechanics and social comfort for convenience. From a welfare standpoint, the walker may harm mental well-being and doesn’t replace natural movement with peers. Beyond mental stress, there are clear physical/biomechanical downsides to continuous circular movement on horse walkers — especially the common small round designs:

A. Abnormal Asymmetrical Limb Loading

• Horses moving in circles load their inside and outside limbs differently — the outside forelimb, for example, often bears more load and pressure as the body leans into the turn. This is documented across circular exercise studies.

• These asymmetrical forces are unnatural compared to straight-line movement and can contribute to uneven strain on joints, tendons and ligaments over time.

B. In most the diameter is to small = Higher Stance Duration & Strain

• Research comparing small (≈10 m) versus larger diameter circles shows longer stance duration and different stride mechanics, which increases the repetitive strain on structures while the horse constantly turns.

• In practice, many horse walkers are smaller than ideal, meaning horses are continually in a biomechanically less favourable posture.

C. Surface & Hoof Rotation Problems

• Surfaces in walkers are often worn, uneven, firm, or compacted — all of which limit the hoof’s ability to rotate and adapt naturally during weight-bearing.

• When the hoof can’t rotate freely, that resistance transfers up the limb — increasing loads on joints, tendons and ligaments beyond normal straight-line forces.

D. Repetitive Loading & Microtrauma Risk

• Repetitive, curved motion with asymmetric loading without adequate straight-line exercise may predispose horses to microtrauma and musculoskeletal issues, especially in the distal limb joints and axial skeleton.

Overall horse walkers place the limbs and body in non-physiological loading patterns continuously, with limited opportunity for weight redistribution, spontaneous gait variation, or engagement of stabilising musculature — all essential for healthy biomechanics.

🔗 2. Training Aids – This category includes gadgets like draw reins, chambons, bungees, balance reins etc. Why I find them problematic:

– apply pressure that doesn’t align with learning theory (i.e. they force a position, rather than teach self-carriage).

– constant pressure devices don’t reinforce learning appropriately and may cause pain, confusion, or restraint of natural movement

– Gadgets that fix head or neck position can result in unnatural biomechanics, restricting natural head movement vital for balance and respiratory mechanics.

My particular crux, the pessoa, ome think there might be short-term communicative benefits in skilled hands, however I find that even then they inadvertently create reliance and prevent the horse from learning correct movement independently and:

A. There is limited Scientific Support for Core Benefits. When objectively measured, the Pessoa training aid did not significantly increase core back muscle activity (e.g., the longissimus dorsi) even though its claimed purpose of strengthening the topline!

B. Alters Stride & Posture Without Clear Benefit. Using a Pessoa has been shown to reduce stride length, speed, head angle changes, and lumbosacral angles — meaning it changes movement patterns rather than engaging the horse naturally, giving a visual impression of “roundness” but it’s not reflected in improved biomechanics.

C. Restrictive & Misleading Mechanics – pessoa restricts the horse’s head and neck movement, impairing balance and natural locomotion

D. Critique from Evidence-Based Training Reviews emphasise that the scientific evidence for benefit is limited, and many effects are anecdotal or driven by placebo in humans rather than measurable improvements in muscles, biomechanics, or welfare.

Summary of Pessoa Issues

✔ It doesn’t reliably improve topline use in the way promoters claim.

✔ It alters movement mechanics in ways that may benefit appearance more than function.

✔ It can increase back pressures that might contribute to discomfort or compensatory movement patterns

✔ It can restrict natural movement and balance strategies of the head/neck.

👞 3. Shoes

Why this is controversial?

Traditional metal shoes interfere with the hoof’s natural expansion and contraction during locomotion — a mechanism fundamental for shock absorption and circulation within the foot. Increased weight of shoes changes limb mechanics, potentially altering gait and increasing distal limb stress. Shoes can be protective in certain work scenarios, but as a blanket staple for “all horses always”, they compromise natural biomechanics and sensory feedback, which has downstream effects on gait, balance, and limb health.

🔄 4. Lunge pen / Round Pens

Lunging and round-pen work inherently force a horse into repetitive circular motion, which can cause asymmetric loading on limbs and spine, and may increase musculoskeletal strain if overdone. Like horse walkers midday if these are too small also. Round pens can easily become arenas of fear-based training (controlling the flight response), which is counter to evidence-based learning theory. Reviews acknowledge that circle-based training is widely used, but risks injury, conflict behaviours, and unnecessary arousal if not taught with science-based learning principles. Round pen work often bypasses critical foundational training and can habituate stress responses, reinforce unwanted movement patterns, and add physical strain.

🚫 5. Flash Nosebands

Tight flash nosebands especially apply constant pressure and prevent normal oral behaviours such as licking, chewing, and yawning — all important for comfort and stress regulation. But even when well fitted they affect the pressure and fit on the Cavesson nose band and block the horse’s ability to communicate discomfort non-verbally. Welfare reviews highlight that restrictive nosebands compromise welfare: they can cause discomfort, pain, or tissue damage, and mask conflict behaviours, creating a false appearance of “submission.” These devices obscure the horse’s signals, impede key natural movements, and can silence welfare signs rather than improve training.

My ones that didn’t write make the cut of the final top 5 because I don’t completely hate them I just dislike the way they are used a lot of the time.

Haynets

Haynets, especially Single, Low, Small-Hole, Static Nets. Again — I’m not anti-haynet, I’m anti-lazy haynet use. Physical impact

1. Cervical & thoracic strain – Fixed haynets (especially low or single-point hung):

-Encourage prolonged unilateral loading

-Promote neck flexion with rotation which can contribute to:- 🔸Brachiocephalicus and omotransversarius overuse

🔸Lower cervical compression

🔸Thoracic sling disengagement.

2. Altered chewing mechanics which restricts forage extraction:

– Changes jaw excursion

– Increases asymmetry in TMJ loading Over time, this may contribute to:

– Poll tension

– Facial muscle hypertonicity

– Dental wear pattern asymmetry

3. Static posture for long periods in or posture when feeding from one net which reduces:

– Spinal motion

– Limb loading variation

– Natural foraging movement patterns

– Mental & behavioural impact

1. Frustration & food-seeking stress especially with very small-hole nets:

-Increase time to access food

-Can elevate frustration, especially in horses with high food motivation

– Aggressive net interaction

-Pawing

-Teeth contact with netting

2. Loss of natural foraging behaviour

Grazing involves:

-Continuous movement

-Head-down posture with micro-adjustments

-Choice and agency

– Single haynets remove choice, which is a key welfare component.

However, I’m not completely anti haynet usage they do have legitimate, evidence-supported uses:

✔ Slowing intake in greedy eaters

✔ Managing EMS / laminitis / obesity

✔ Allowing soaked hay to be fed hygienically

✔ Encouraging multiple feeding heights and locations when used well.

The problem is not the haynet — it’s:

One net. One height One position. For many hours. Every day

Studies on feeding posture show:

🔸Ground-level or varied-height feeding supports more natural biomechanics

🔸Welfare guidance increasingly recommends:

*Multiple forage stations*

Movement between feeding points

*Avoidance of single static feeding positions

Arenas

Again, it’s not the arena itself I have an issue with in general, its the prolonged ridden arena work, especially small arenas. This one often surprises people. Why it’s an issue? Repetitive schooling patterns (20×40, 20×60):

🔸CirclesCornersSerpentines→ create chronic asymmetrical loading

🔸Many horses do most of their work here, despite it being:

🔸The least variable, The least natural, The most posture-driven

The Physical consequences

– Thoracolumbar stiffness

– SI strain

– Inside/outside limb overload patterns

– Learned compensatory movement that looks “correct” but isn’t functional

Why it didn’t quite make the cut in my top 5? When used intelligently, arenas can be incredibly valuable. The issue is volume and monotony, not existence. This sits in the same category as walkers and round pens:

🟣 circles aren’t evil — living on them is.

Stables

My last one that didn’t make the cut, but why? Over-use, poor design, prolonged confinement, stables themselves aren’t the enemy — how and how long they’re used is.

Physical impact:

1. Restricted movement = tissue deconditioning. Horses evolved for low-intensity, high-frequency movement (15–20+ hours/day). Prolonged stabling reduces:

– Joint lubrication (synovial fluid movement)

– Tendon and ligament strain adaptation

– Bone density maintenance

– Studies show even 24–48 hours of box rest can measurably reduce musculoskeletal loading tolerance and insulin sensitivity.

2. Small stable size – Many UK stables are below modern welfare recommendations. Small boxes restrict:

– Normal postural change

– Rolling behaviour

– Stretching through the spine.

This contributes to:

– Thoracolumbar stiffness

– Reduced thoracic sling engagement

– Compensatory movement patterns once back in work

3. Deep or inappropriate bedding. Very deep, soft bedding:

– Creates instability underfoot

– Alters limb loading angles

– Increases strain through collateral ligaments and flexor tendons

Particularly problematic for:

– Hypermobile horses

– Arthritic horses

– Rehab cases where consistency of surface matters

4. Respiratory & inflammatory load. Even “dust-free” bedding increases:

– Airborne particulates

– Low-grade airway inflammation.

This directly affects:

– Oxygen uptake

– Exercise tolerance

– Recovery capacity

– Mental & behavioural impact

1. Social deprivation – Horses are obligate social animals. Prolonged stabling limits:

– Mutual grooming

– Synchronous behaviour

– Social buffering of stress

This is associated with increased cortisol, stereotypies (weaving, cribbing, box walking)

2. Learned helplessness. Horses stabled for long periods with little control over:

– Feeding times

– Movement

– Social contact

can show shutdown behaviours, which are often misinterpreted as “good” or “quiet”. Turnout is a welfare requirement, not a luxury. Stabling should be time-limited, not default. Research consistently links increased stabling time with:

– Higher incidence of stereotypic behaviour

– Increased musculoskeletal stiffness

– Reduced insulin sensitivity

I believe stables are useful for medical management, short-term safety, weather extremes but they are massively over-used and often poorly designed.

Overall, most of these staples in my lists became commonplace through tradition and convenience, not because they were grounded in sound equine biomechanics or welfare science. What the literature suggests is this:

✔️ Exercise should allow natural movement — free, balanced, biomechanically sound.

✔️ Training should align with learning theory and allow the horse to offer behaviours, not just be forced into them.

✔️ Equipment should enable comfort, not mask discomfort.

✔️ Welfare is best supported when behaviours and body health are prioritised over performance or aesthetics.