You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''

trjjoy

Every so often someone on MFP will say they have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''. This is just not true. Have a look at the photos in the success story threads. People will go from 150kg to 65kg and their bodies change a LOT.

I've only lost about 8kg but my shoulders have shrunk so much that my UK size 14/US size 12 jacket is now too big around the shoulders. It used to fit me perfectly, but I now drown in it and yes, even the sleeves have become too long.

Your body WILL change when you lose weight. If you're a woman, you more than likely DO NOT have broad shoulders. The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG.

Sued0nim

I do have a big frame by measurement of wrist and forearm and width of pelvis

When I first started I accepted this and set my goal as my maximum BMI of 25 fully expecting to stay within the overweight category

I still have a big frame and have been at goal for a year...turns out I look best at a weight which puts my BMI at 24 so below the maximum BMI range I thought I'd be outside and that's with a decent musculature and a lowish, for my age, BF%

cafeaulait7

I have broad shoulders, yeah. So does my brother, and my uncle. It's genetic. I don't have fat on my shoulders, thanks.

My shoulders are 18" across bone-to-bone (not including delts or arms) at 5'6" and I'm not fat at all (many folks here are in maintenance). That's broad enough to change my shirt size for the seams to fit where they should.

Sued0nim

I sometimes catch myself staring at my shoulders in the gym ...I really never realised I could like the way shoulders and tops of arms look

FrostAyy

I am big boned, and also fat.

Seriously though. I have large shoulders and decently sized hips. I'm like a big rectangle.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

I'm confused. Are you saying we are all the same bone size and width?

amusedmonkey

Some people do have wider/thicker bones than others. It's genetic. My whole family is large-framed on both sides of the family, so I am too. I have people in the family on both sides of weight extremes, and the thin ones have broad shoulders, broad hips, wide wrists...etc. However, it would be stupid to claim that I'm not fat I'm just "big-boned" when I clearly am fat.

tomteboda

Adult brain sizes can vary by as much as 70% within a gender. How can you completely dismiss the concept that people's skeletal frames also vary considerably?

Shrinking_Erin

Hmm. I have a big head.. Will that shrink as I lose weight? I'd love to be able to buy hats from a normal store!

Also - I'm only being half sarcastic. I really do have a big head. : (

amusedmonkey

It can actually save lives in some cases. My mother, who is in her 60s, fell off a cliff last year and came out of it with only a couple of cracked ribs and a concussion. The doctors were so impressed at the minimal bone damage compared to soft tissue damage at her age and wanted to run additional tests. Turns out not only does she have look to have a wide frame, but the bones themselves are thicker in both size and density. She was told she had the bone density of a woman less than half her age.

trjjoy

Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.

ldowdesw

I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!

bendyourkneekatie

This is a genuine query: why would a bigger frame mean more fat/weight, outside of a small variance? Like, I can buy that some frames may be wider than others (I sure seem to have one narrower than most, if my hip measurements are anything to go by, so I can believe the opposite to be true), but I don't understand why that would translate to a significant variance in ideal body weight.

ldowdesw

How about we are all the same height really!!! Just as funny lol!!

suziecue20

OP, I'm trying to work out exactly what point you are trying to make. Is it that some people use the 'I have a large frame' excuse for not bothering to lose weight or are you saying everybody's frame size is the same, or is it something else?

Some people will use ANY excuse not to lose weight, not just frame size.

I am 5ft and have a large frame [wrist size, pelvic size] but that doesn't mean I can't/won't lose weight to get to a healthy weight that suits me.

amusedmonkey

katem999 wrote: »

This is a genuine query: why would a bigger frame mean more fat/weight, outside of a small variance? Like, I can buy that some frames may be wider than others (I sure seem to have one narrower than most, if my hip measurements are anything to go by, so I can believe the opposite to be true), but I don't understand why that would translate to a significant variance in ideal body weight.

Just like muscle, bigger and denser bones contribute to weight, where one could be considered overweight by BMI standards when they aren't. The opposite is true for people with smaller than average bones. The BMI was actually modified for South Asians because, by the way of genetics, many of them could appear to be underweight by BMI standards when they aren't and can be considered overweight (with increased health risks) at a lower BMI than the average person.

tomteboda

katem999 wrote: »

This is a genuine query: why would a bigger frame mean more fat/weight, outside of a small variance? Like, I can buy that some frames may be wider than others (I sure seem to have one narrower than most, if my hip measurements are anything to go by, so I can believe the opposite to be true), but I don't understand why that would translate to a significant variance in ideal body weight.

Mass is proportional to volume. Volume increases by the square of the radius for a cylinder or cone, and by the cube of the radius for a sphere. The entire human body can be modeled as a series of spheres, cylinders and cones. Thus volume will increase with radius at an order of something between 2-3 (closer to 2, though, as more body parts are cylindrical/conical in nature). Thus, a small change in radius would lead to a significant increase in volume and therefore mass.

Sued0nim

amusedmonkey wrote: »

katem999 wrote: »

This is a genuine query: why would a bigger frame mean more fat/weight, outside of a small variance? Like, I can buy that some frames may be wider than others (I sure seem to have one narrower than most, if my hip measurements are anything to go by, so I can believe the opposite to be true), but I don't understand why that would translate to a significant variance in ideal body weight.

Just like muscle, bigger and denser bones contribute to weight, where one could be considered overweight by BMI standards when they aren't. The opposite is true for people with smaller than average bones. The BMI was actually modified for South Asians because, by the way of genetics, many of them could appear to be underweight by BMI standards when they aren't and can be considered overweight (with increased health risks) at a lower BMI than the average person.

From what I understand that's not how the Asian BMI chart was adapted...the underweight limit remains in place but the overweight limit moved from 25 down to I think 23 or thereabouts

My recollection is hazy of the point change but I'm fairly certain that underweight is underweight even for Asian scale

The thing about the population measure of BMI is that it's statistically relevant on a population level and incorporates general differences in bone density, frame size etc within the scaling. However the confidence interval appears to be about 75-80 which does allow for outliers by size, musculature, disability and any other confounding characteristic

yesimpson

Surely the reason there is a healthy weight range, not a specific number, for a particular height is because we are not all exactly the same width/density/whatever?

Taking my own height as an example, for 5'6 the healthy range as described by the NHS is 120-144lbs.

I can see the OP's point if she's referring to seriously overweight people who claim they could never exist under 200lbs at 5'8 because of a large frame (not that I've ever met anyone who claimed that sort of thing, but I watch a lot of bad telly).

yirara

I have tiny wrists and a very thin neck, but my shoulders are too wide to wear size S shirts, and my wide pelvis will never allow me to wear really small sized pants. Annoyingly, my waist is rather slim, thus all pants I can pull over my hips are too wide on my waist.

But honestly, what's the average bone density? I found a value of 1.56 g/cm^3. Thus 1 kg extra weight would amount to a bone plate of 1cm x 100cm x 6.4cm. I don't think that my locally wider frame accounts to this amount of extra bone.

sijomial

Of course people have different size and proportion skeletons!
Different limb length to body ratios, different rib cage girth, wider/narrower pelvis, different skull size etc. etc. etc.

My ideal weight is towards the higher end of the BMI range, someone with proportionally longer limbs and smaller rib cage would be towards the lower end of the range like my mate at school with the nickname Long John Silver (he had a sunken chest...).

It's also very true that people use big-boned or large framed as an excuse for being fat and/or heavy.