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

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…17

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    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
    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
    I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!
  • bendyourkneekatie
    bendyourkneekatie Posts: 696 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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: 9,928 Member
    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.
  • star1407
    star1407 Posts: 588 Member
    Silly thing to say, some of us have a larger frame, some are more petite. I can't go below a size 12 and look healthy. My head and bones are larger than my friend who has the tiniest little wrists compared to me
    We're all different in many ways, I don't get why the op doesn't understand it
  • xX_PhoenixRising_Xx
    xX_PhoenixRising_Xx Posts: 623 Member
    trjjoy wrote: »
    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.

    I actually did used to weigh 150kg and of course my body changed a lot and my clothing size was bigger, I used to wear a 3XL top. A 3XL top now comes down to around my knees. Most of the time I'm a size Small. But I still had to buy a large band size when I bought my Fitbit. There's barely a scrap of fat on my wrists or upper body in general now, but I'm 170cm and I certainly don't have a dainty small frame. Fat and frame size don't really correlate in my opinion.

    Of course there are those that claim they're not fat they're just "big boned" but that's another matter entirely. Visually it's quite different.
  • allenpriest
    allenpriest Posts: 1,102 Member
    eringurl33 wrote: »
    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. : (

    My hat size (male, US) has indeed gone down 1/2 size or so after my loss to date. It's bad when you are carrying extra fat in the back of your head!
  • skinnyinnotime
    skinnyinnotime Posts: 4,078 Member
    Actually you can have a big frame and I'm a woman with broad shoulders...whilst not being overweight.
  • evileen99
    evileen99 Posts: 1,564 Member
    trjjoy wrote: »
    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.

    Frame size has nothing to do with how broad your shoulders are; it's related to bone size/density (so yes, you can have "big bones"). Two people who are the exact same height and have the same amount of lean muscle mass can weigh different amounts based on frame size--the one with the large frame will have more bone mass, which weighs more.

    I'm 5'8". My ring size is 3.75; my wrist circumference is a little over 5". I have a small frame. It has nothing to do with my shoulders.

    https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm
  • caffeinatedcami
    caffeinatedcami Posts: 168 Member
    I do think some people use frame size as an excuse for not losing weight. And calculators may be somewhat innacurate, especially if one carries a lot of fat on his or her wrists. However, I don't think that's the case for the majority on MFP. Frame size is not being used to deny the need for weight loss. It's being offered as one of the reasons individuals of the same height and weight can look so different (in addition to muscle/fat distribution).

    There is huge variation in human morphology. I have never been clinically overweight, but I have always had large feet (US 9-9.5) even for my height. No one denies that foot size varies. I think it's odd to believe that foot proportion is the only example of skeletal variation.
  • 257_Lag
    257_Lag Posts: 1,249 Member
    Yes, I do

Categories