Opinion on "set points", "big boned" and body size

maoribadger

Has Sugga actually looked at the picture properly. A pound of anything weighs the same as a pound of anything but the muscle sits neatly in the weighing scale while the fat spills out over the side because you have increased volume for the same weight ergo you can weigh more whilst being smaller. I'm not entirely sure how this is so difficult to grasp.

OP go by your clothes. And if you find you cant maintain the weight without a lifetime of restricting is the number really worth it?

ninerbuff

Don't believe in any of them. If there were true "set points" then people should stay the same size regardless of how much they consumed. That would mean that change in body wouldn't happen. And we can definitely see that happens.
"Big boned" doesn't really exist either. People can have "larger frames and structures" (height and width) but the amount of muscle and fat AROUND the bones are dictated by consumption of calories and their physical activity. The percentage of circumference around bones are pretty consistent based on length.
The only thing that's consistent is genetics. Where fat is held and how one is shaped is genetically predetermined.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

cwolfman13

If you have an athletic build and are muscular you are going to weigh more...

According to BMI, I'm overweight @ 5'10" and 189 Lbs...but I'm at 15% BF...so who *kitten* cares? Stop the scale obsession.

The reason BMI is a range is to account for various body types, and even then it misses.

ducati45

I think some people (women especially) have different weights and body fat percentages and all these things in which their face begins to look gaunt and their body freaks out and they lose their period. Having fat on your boobs and your hips and thighs is scientifically just healthier than having it around your stomach and mid section. Of course not having an overabundance is still bad but still that's it. Also water weight on some people is ridiculous like me, no-one believes me until they see the evidence of how much I can vary morning to morning weight. Point is I go by waist measurement and being able to do fitness tests and right now I'm not at a good point for that.

sweetdixie92

torytrom wrote: »

Is it achievable for everyone with accurate calorie counting and hard work? Or are some of us just doomed to be slightly heavier than others?

I don't think I'd be calling that "doomed". It's not about your weight really...at all.

If you're muscular, 135-140 sounds like a great weight for your height. I'm 5' and am aiming for 120ish myself because I'm pretty muscular. Even though most "skinny" girls my height weigh a good 20 pounds less. So I've tossed weight numbers in the trash. I'll never weigh as little as some girls, but who cares? I want to be fit and strong. Not skinny.

sweetdixie92

SuggaD wrote: »

I totally agree with Chief_Rocka. I am 5'6. I originally wanted to get to 135, but when I got there, I wanted to continue. It has taken a long time, but I finally made it to 120 (and not with that much discipline. lol). I dont mind getting down to 115 without trying. I like being slender. But I am very muscular (ignore those silly pics about fat and muscle; I call bs on the muscular weighing more). I don't believe in big-boned, etc.

LOL to the bold mostly. Muscle is more dense than fat. Therefore, if you have one cubic foot of fat, and one cubic foot of muscle, the muscle is going to weigh more.

I'm gonna say you're not too muscular at 5'6" and 120. You might have lean muscle, but I wouldn't consider that "muscular". Start really working out and you'll put on pounds!

mykaylis

MrM27 wrote: »

mykaylis wrote: »

muscle IS heavier than fat. you don't see a pound, but you see an inch. if you take 27 cubic inches of fat, and 27cubic inches of muscle, you will see a huge difference when you put the two on the scale.

i do believe big boned is a factor, but not as much a factor as some people think. set points can be altered. there is a range of healthy body weights for every height given because of different body compositions and shapes. i'm apple shaped. i need to lose more to be healthy than i would if i was pear shaped. i'm also big boned, so i know that the small end of "healthy" is probably an unrealistic goal. middle of the road will be fantastic.

It weighs more by volume but a pound still equals a pound.

you really didn't read what i said did you. i wasn't comparing one pound of fat to one pound of muscle to one pound of feathers or anything else. i was comparing something you would see - a set volume of material - and stated that, given that volume, muscle weighs more than fat. i don't look at myself and say oh, look. i see a pound there is gone. i DO see that my jeans are looser or my shirt is more flattering. size you can see. weight you can't.

Mr_Knight

sweetdixie92 wrote: »

Start really working out and you'll put on pounds!

To what end?

Excess weight is negative for the body, whether that excess is fat or muscle.

DeWoSa

torytrom wrote: »

What is your opinion on my ability to reach 125-130 lbs? Is it achievable for everyone with accurate calorie counting and hard work? Or are some of us just doomed to be slightly heavier than others?

Thank you

You can certainly reach 125. You can reach 99 pounds or 78 pounds.

The question is how you want to look, rather than what you weigh. Get some photos of people who are the same height and shape (hourglass, pear, etc.) as you but of varying sizes and decide which look you like -- thin, muscular, etc.

I have an hourglass shape so I can look like Beyonce or Delta Burke, depending upon my size, but no matter how much weight I lose, I'll never look like Kate Moss, Tilda Swinton or Anne Hathaway, who are H-shaped.

Re big boned.

Look at your wrist bone and compare it to someone else's wrist bone. If your's is bigger, you have bigger bones than that person. I've seen some fellows with a wrist bone the size of a walnut. Mine's roughly dime-sized in diameter.

Bigger bones weigh more than smaller bones of the same density, which is the second factor in bone weight. You can have big bones but they might not be very dense. I have normal sized bones but I have a very high bone density (Normal is -1 to 1; mine is around 2.5). My mother has my same bone size, but she has very porous bones. My same-sized bones weigh more than hers because mine are more dense.

Either way, bones get bigger and denser as you gain weight, and they get smaller and less dense as you lose weight, so their weight is tied in with your overall weight. They don't exist as a set amount of weight that doesn't change regardless of how much you weigh --they are busy dying and regenerating all the time. That's why calcium for bone health is important.

SuggaD

sweetdixie92 wrote: »

SuggaD wrote: »

I totally agree with Chief_Rocka. I am 5'6. I originally wanted to get to 135, but when I got there, I wanted to continue. It has taken a long time, but I finally made it to 120 (and not with that much discipline. lol). I dont mind getting down to 115 without trying. I like being slender. But I am very muscular (ignore those silly pics about fat and muscle; I call bs on the muscular weighing more). I don't believe in big-boned, etc.

LOL to the bold mostly. Muscle is more dense than fat. Therefore, if you have one cubic foot of fat, and one cubic foot of muscle, the muscle is going to weigh more.

I'm gonna say you're not too muscular at 5'6" and 120. You might have lean muscle, but I wouldn't consider that "muscular". Start really working out and you'll put on pounds!

Because I really don't work out enough already though I lift 2-3x per week (and not light weights), run, cycle, swim, walk, stairs, core work, and rowing. :-)