Does [Frame} size matter?

Options
sak20011
sak20011 Posts: 94 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm (almost) 5'2" and 120#. My goal is 115.

My entire life I thought I had a small frame, because I am petite with small features, small feet, and a small head (I can wear a big kids hat). At the same time, I have always felt kind of wide/chubby, never one of those slender petite waifs but I figured it was because of extra body weight. Its true that I have broad shoulders and hips...and although I am a petite in height I can't wear petite tops because they're too small in the shoulders.

Out of curiosity on one of the BMI calculators I just calculated my frame size--both wrist and elbow have me at large, and firmly so.

Does frame size matter in calculating your ideal weight? Or should it only be body fat (which I haven't figured out how to calculate accurately).
«1

Replies

  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it. The heavier you are, the bigger your wrist and elbow are. The clue for me is that you have broad shoulders (and possibly broad hip bones). My sister and I are the same height, but her build is more slender than mine. She's about 2-3 sizes smaller than me both top and bottom and we are both in the normal weight range. It's not a big deal. Just shoot for the top of your BMI range and reassess at that time.
  • puzzledstill
    puzzledstill Posts: 67 Member
    Options
    I'm 5ft 1" (almost) !
    This is the first time I've heard of frame size - so just found out mine -large.
    I lost a lot of weight with weight watchers but couldn't maintain at the target weight. I knew it was too low - and if I look up weight range for large frame then this is confirmed. This time I'll listen to my body when weight plateaus. This will be in large frame range - if things are the same as last time.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Options
    sak20011 wrote: »
    I'm (almost) 5'2" and 120#. My goal is 115.

    My entire life I thought I had a small frame, because I am petite with small features, small feet, and a small head (I can wear a big kids hat). At the same time, I have always felt kind of wide/chubby, never one of those slender petite waifs but I figured it was because of extra body weight. Its true that I have broad shoulders and hips...and although I am a petite in height I can't wear petite tops because they're too small in the shoulders.

    Out of curiosity on one of the BMI calculators I just calculated my frame size--both wrist and elbow have me at large, and firmly so.

    Does frame size matter in calculating your ideal weight? Or should it only be body fat (which I haven't figured out how to calculate accurately).

    Frame size matters...body fat matters...muscle mass matters. That is why BMI is a range. My wife has a medium to large frame and athletic build and a far amount of muscle...at 125-130 Lbs, she's pretty lean (5'2")...she would look absolutely ill at the low end of BMI and it would be completely inappropriate for her to try to get there. She'd also have to torch some muscle mass which seems silly to me.
  • sak20011
    sak20011 Posts: 94 Member
    Options
    Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it. The heavier you are, the bigger your wrist and elbow are. The clue for me is that you have broad shoulders (and possibly broad hip bones). My sister and I are the same height, but her build is more slender than mine. She's about 2-3 sizes smaller than me both top and bottom and we are both in the normal weight range. It's not a big deal. Just shoot for the top of your BMI range and reassess at that time.

    Definitely have wide hip bones. My midwife said first time she met me--oh good, most petite women don't have such wide hips. and its true, my first was a hair under 9lbs and while labor was long, pushing was 15 min. luckily he also had my small head....


    anyway, my bmi is now 21.9 so middle of the range. I think I'm going to start to focus on body comp and see if that gets me where I want to be (I still for sure have fat on me but could use more muscle).
  • everher
    everher Posts: 909 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it.

    I've always wondered what is an accurate measure of frame size. Is there one?

    I always said/thought I had a medium/large frame, but as I lose more weight I'm not sure. My frame seems "smaller" (probably because there's less weight on it) and it's been so long since I was actually in shape I can't really recall what I looked like then.
  • Huskeryogi
    Huskeryogi Posts: 578 Member
    Options
    JessicaMcB wrote: »
    Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.

    I'll represent the other side of the spectrum: I'm 5'10" and the max on the BMI chart is 178. The lowest I ever got was 167, and did not like how my upper body looked. The lowest I ever want to be again is 175. At 167, I was in a pant size 10, and still needed jackets in a 12, but any sleeveless tops could be a 4 or 6. Frame matters.

    I also trust waist hip ratio for health more that BMI, but that requires accurate measurements and isn't as simple as a weigh related measure like BMI.

  • Mouse_Potato
    Mouse_Potato Posts: 1,495 Member
    Options
    I think it matters. Also, how you carry your fat. All of mine goes straight to my midsection. According to BMI charts, I could gain 25 pounds and still be in the healthy range, but I've been there and it was clearly too much for my body. I was visibly overweight.
  • db121215
    db121215 Posts: 60 Member
    Options
    emmydoodles83 wrote: »
    wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.

    YES. Some pics I think WOW, they look 30lbs lighter then me and other look 30lbs heavier. Made me feel more comfortable in my skin, cause no ones elses is quite the same.
  • anonuser369
    anonuser369 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    emmydoodles83 wrote: »
    wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.

    Eye-opening! I always thought that I carried my weight well - that no one would be able to guess how high my weight was just by looking at me. Nope - women my height, weight and shape look just like me - some better.
  • timtam163
    timtam163 Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    I think frame size matters but can't be easil quantified. I had a friend who was my height (5'0") and a healthy 130, and another who is my height and 90. I'm not healthy at either end of that range; felt awful at 130 and would sacrifice energy and muscle to be at 90. You know your body better than the numbers do.
  • everher
    everher Posts: 909 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    TeacupsAndToning wrote: »
    emmydoodles83 wrote: »
    wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.

    With this site though I do wonder if people are being honest about their weight and measurements.

    I've looked at my goal weight on women of my height and most of the women looked the same. But I'm trying to get fairly lean so I imagine at such a low number most women would look the same.

    Out of curiosity I looked up my current weight which is about 10 lbs above the normal BMI range for my height and the women looked more varied. Some looked way smaller than the average woman which I'm assuming they have more muscle mass and some looked way larger - perhaps less muscle mass?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,082 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    everher wrote: »
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it.

    I've always wondered what is an accurate measure of frame size. Is there one?

    I always said/thought I had a medium/large frame, but as I lose more weight I'm not sure. My frame seems "smaller" (probably because there's less weight on it) and it's been so long since I was actually in shape I can't really recall what I looked like then.

    I think there's no sure single simple determinant, but skeletal structure is certainly one thing that matters in general.

    Most of the simple tests fail for me: I'm only 5'5", but feet are 9-10; shoulders usually require L tops if there are sleeves; hands are big (ring finger is size 10 when I'm thin & most women's rings stop at 8 or 9; men's gloves are usually necessary); head is big (men's hat size about 7.5, a lot of women's "one size fits all" just sit atop my head). So, the common rules of thumb usually peg me as at least medium frame if not large.

    Nope. I have the hips of a 14-year-old boy, and didn't have much of a chest, even while fat and even before the mastectomies. I still have adequate (possibly excess) body fat at BMI 20 (120 pounds) despite not being muscle-less.

    I suspect pelvic width and breast size are the important variables, for women . . . but both of those are hard to evaluate while still obese.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    Options
    everher wrote: »
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it.

    I've always wondered what is an accurate measure of frame size. Is there one?

    I always said/thought I had a medium/large frame, but as I lose more weight I'm not sure. My frame seems "smaller" (probably because there's less weight on it) and it's been so long since I was actually in shape I can't really recall what I looked like then.
    An x-ray, I expect.

    You need to have a rough idea of the width of your shoulders and hips without flesh, really. I agree that wrists and elbows can't be very accurate. I have tiny hands, so tiny they freak ME out when I look at them, but I don't think they're in proportion to the rest of my body. Unsurprisingly, the wrist and elbow calculations differ, and say I have a small frame or a broad one, respectively.

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,389 Member
    Options
    I don't think frame size matters much and cannot really be categorized. I always thought I had very wide hips. Ok, they are somewhat widish, but my shoulders are wider and most of my wide hips was due to padding and genetics to attack the padding to this bodypart. While having wide hips I actually have the tinyest wrists. I can grab around with thumb and middle finger, and nearly reach the first joint of the middle finger, and my fingers are not very long. On the other hand my knee disks are big.
  • glassofroses
    glassofroses Posts: 653 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    JessicaMcB wrote: »
    Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.

    I'll represent the other side of the spectrum: I'm 5'10" and the max on the BMI chart is 178. The lowest I ever got was 167, and did not like how my upper body looked. The lowest I ever want to be again is 175. At 167, I was in a pant size 10, and still needed jackets in a 12, but any sleeveless tops could be a 4 or 6. Frame matters.

    I also trust waist hip ratio for health more that BMI, but that requires accurate measurements and isn't as simple as a weigh related measure like BMI.

    Another tall lady at 5'11.5 with a small frame (everything tiny but my hips), and I agree with @Huskeryogi . I'm currently 140, size 4, sometimes 6, but I still have biceps, quads and strong calves. Except I don't like it, being that low. I don't look drastically different from 146 which what I weighed before my recent appendectomy, but I don't feel like this is the weight for me. Some might even say I should lose a bit more weight as still have a bit of belly fat but I know that's not for me at all. So it's really about where you feel fittest/happiest within the range, irrespective of frame size.
  • noirelb
    noirelb Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    glassofroses wrote: »
    Huskeryogi wrote: »
    JessicaMcB wrote: »
    Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.

    I'll represent the other side of the spectrum: I'm 5'10" and the max on the BMI chart is 178. The lowest I ever got was 167, and did not like how my upper body looked. The lowest I ever want to be again is 175. At 167, I was in a pant size 10, and still needed jackets in a 12, but any sleeveless tops could be a 4 or 6. Frame matters.

    I also trust waist hip ratio for health more that BMI, but that requires accurate measurements and isn't as simple as a weigh related measure like BMI.

    Another tall lady at 5'11.5 with a small frame (everything tiny but my hips), and I agree with @Huskeryogi . I'm currently 140, size 4, sometimes 6, but I still have biceps, quads and strong calves. Except I don't like it, being that low. I don't look drastically different from 146 which what I weighed before my recent appendectomy, but I don't feel like this is the weight for me. Some might even say I should lose a bit more weight as still have a bit of belly fat but I know that's not for me at all. So it's really about where you feel fittest/happiest within the range, irrespective of frame size.

    Opposit here. I'm 5'10'' and pear shaped. I've been very skinny before with eating disorder and i was at my mid BMI range at 153lbs (lightest I've ever been) and size 10 pants and probably size 8 tops. My doctor told me to gain weight or my fertility could have been affected. So I'll assume I have a large frame.
  • seltzermint555
    seltzermint555 Posts: 10,742 Member
    Options
    I've always found it very confusing. I have enormous hips (even at my lowest weight), relatively broad shoulders, can only wear men's hats because I have a big head, and am pretty tall at 5'8". BUT I have tiny ankles, wrists, hands, feet, etc. Kind of thin arms and legs for the size of my torso. I've always had people call me small framed even when I was 5'8" and 250+ lb...but with the broadness of my body even at 165 lb, and my big head...I have no idea...

Categories