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

Options
trjjoy
trjjoy Posts: 666 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
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.
«134567…25

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    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
    FrostAyy Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    I am big boned, and also fat.

    Seriously though. I have large shoulders and decently sized hips. I'm like a big rectangle.
  • ldowdesw
    ldowdesw Posts: 222 Member
    Options
    I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!
  • bendyourkneekatie
    bendyourkneekatie Posts: 696 Member
    Options
    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.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    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
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    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
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    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
    yesimpson Posts: 1,372 Member
    Options
    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
    yirara Posts: 9,398 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories