You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
zoeysasha37 wrote: »zoeysasha37 wrote: »
Challenge accepted. I'm going to take you up on that. I'll get hubby to take pictures of me this week. Then next Monday I will go to Planet Fitness and start working out. In 6 weeks I will post the before and after side by side so you can see the difference, okay?
Sounds great.1 -
Yep, I think it was started as a joke on Reddit, but now it's spread a bit and people actually take it seriously...apologies to @JaneSnowe for having to check, but some people...
(ETA: And I obviously didn't read the text either, hahaha. I didn't even notice that they say its a joke right on there because the rest of it is such drivel
Reading comprehension fail!) 1 -
Yeah, I realized after posting it was probably done in jest.
More coffee...1 -
zoeysasha37 wrote: »zoeysasha37 wrote: »
Challenge accepted. I'm going to take you up on that. I'll get hubby to take pictures of me this week. Then next Monday I will go to Planet Fitness and start working out. In 6 weeks I will post the before and after side by side so you can see the difference, okay?
Tips for these photos to show extreme muscle gain: lose as much weight as possible while eating a high protein diet and weight training to maintain muscle mass or at least as much as you can, dehydrate yourself for a few days before the pics, drink plenty of water right before taking the photo and make sure you lift hard to pump up.
Voila! No muscle gained, but you'll look like you did. It's an optical illusion having to do with the relative size of your body parts due to fat loss and a good pump. You can even play this game in one day if you reverse the order you take the photos. The supplement industry is great at this.
The studies are what they are. You should probably start looking at Eric Helms, Brad Schoenfeld, Alan Aragon, and their peers if you really want to understand muscle gain, fat loss, and how to go about it.3 -
I've found this discussion interesting because I've felt that I have a large frame. However, I'd never use it an excuse to be overweight in regards to BMI. I just figured that I would be on the higher end of where I belong for my height, rather than being on the lower end of the range. It's a range for a reason, after all.
That being said... I'm not sure how shoe size relates to body frame size or weight. My mother is three inches taller than me and wears a size 9. My shoe size is 6W. I also don't think my feet will get any smaller when I do lose the weight I want. It's always been 6W. When I weighed 116 pounds (and was skin and bones), I wore a 6W. When I got up to 187 pounds, I had the same shoe size.2 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol0 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Unfortunately, OP mixed it up a little more than that, as we all tend to do when we rant. She said people use "big bones" as an excuse, and that it is "just not true" that anyone has "a big frame".
Some of us are arguing on the side of one part of her post, some are arguing the other. Nice job of pot-stirring, OP.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.
And I haven't seen much on the thread of people justifying an extra 10+% body fat on that basis. Weighing more, yes (largely from the meat that hangs around those wider/longer bones, and 10% more isn't necessarily that much meat). Carrying more body fat, not really.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
All the posts around the lines of "I'm 5'5'' tall but because of my bones I'd look like a skeleton below 150 pounds, and I'm most comfortable at 180" who are most likely not 150 pounds and lean.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
You must not come from a fat family, or talk to many obese people about their problem. I hear this crap at least twice a month.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
I *do* think there is a range of bodyfat levels that is healthy for different people. That range probably IS right at that 10%, for women from about 18% to 28% or so. Ish. Maybe 15% for young athletes.
What I do not think is that body type is going to throw them out of the healthy BMI range. So if I am 5'9" and built lean and look and feel good from 125lb to 140lb, a curvy by nature woman will still fit inside the BMI "normal" range, which goes up to 168lb. The range considered healthy is from 125lb to 168lb. That is the allowance for variation in body types, that is a 43 pound range, and I don't think that ladies of my height, at their ideal weights, really vary more than forty three pounds from each other.
It's like me arguing that 98lb was OK for me because I looked OK. I did actually look OK, sort of fashion model build, the skinny arms and all, not gaunt or skeletal, but being that light for so long did my body no favors. If you are Jessica Rabbit curvy with a corset that may look amazing, but I think the extra fat is still harmful even if it's beautifully arranged.3 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Did you have a baby? My feet grew a shoe size with each baby even though I weigh less now than I did when I got pregnant with my first.
I'd love to say I'm big-boned...I'm seriously just fat. I suspect I'm actually petite under this lard. But it will have to wait since I'm pregnant again. Hope my feet don't go up another size. I already am at a size 7.5-8 and I'm only 5'3". I don't want my feet to be disproportionate to my height.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
I *do* think there is a range of bodyfat levels that is healthy for different people. That range probably IS right at that 10%, for women from about 18% to 28% or so. Ish. Maybe 15% for young athletes.
What I do not think is that body type is going to throw them out of the healthy BMI range. So if I am 5'9" and built lean and look and feel good from 125lb to 140lb, a curvy by nature woman will still fit inside the BMI "normal" range, which goes up to 168lb. The range considered healthy is from 125lb to 168lb. That is the allowance for variation in body types, that is a 43 pound range, and I don't think that ladies of my height, at their ideal weights, really vary more than forty three pounds from each other.
It's like me arguing that 98lb was OK for me because I looked OK. I did actually look OK, sort of fashion model build, the skinny arms and all, not gaunt or skeletal, but being that light for so long did my body no favors. If you are Jessica Rabbit curvy with a corset that may look amazing, but I think the extra fat is still harmful even if it's beautifully arranged.
Exactly... The range already accounts for differences in bone structure, age, gender, whether or not you've had children, blah, blah, blah. Once you are inside the range, it really is just a matter of aesthetics/vanity, and some people will look/feel better in the lower end, others the middle, others still towards the upper end. But the way the charts are designed, unless you are a true "outlier" in terms of LBM (more than two standard deviations from average), yes, you absolutely can be in the "normal" category. If you are female and not a bodybuilder, odds are you are well within the bell curve (especially considering that the curve includes men!) and your frame would magically get smaller if you lost weight. For myself and my husband there's a 41 lb range (118-159). Sure he looks best in the 150s, while I look best between 135-145 (heck maybe even lower than that, I've never really tried - I'm happy between 135-145 and losing more would simply be about vanity; I'm simply not motivated enough to try to get lower than 135), but that's the built in variation coming into play. When I was 15 I starved myself down to 110 (at the same height as I am now). Yeah, I looked sick then. I was truly underweight.
0 -
heatherannh23 wrote: »My best friend is less than an inch shorter than me. She also weighs less than me and has a smaller pants size by one size. Her wrists are two inches larger than mine and she often can't buy bracelets without having to get them custom made because she has 9 inch wrists. I think some people literally have larger bones. We're not all the same so why can't we have different bone structure? It doesn't sound absurd at all...
@heatherannh23 would you please double check with your friend about her wrist size? 9" sounds off to me. I bet you meant 7".3 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
All the posts around the lines of "I'm 5'5'' tall but because of my bones I'd look like a skeleton below 150 pounds, and I'm most comfortable at 180" who are most likely not 150 pounds and lean.
That was a different thread. And, IIRC, that OP made no claims about frame size.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
You must not come from a fat family, or talk to many obese people about their problem. I hear this crap at least twice a month.
Again, not this thread. But thanks for clarifying that what you are challenging is the beliefs of people other than those on this thread who disagree with the OP.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Where did someone justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat?
I *do* think there is a range of bodyfat levels that is healthy for different people. That range probably IS right at that 10%, for women from about 18% to 28% or so. Ish. Maybe 15% for young athletes.
What I do not think is that body type is going to throw them out of the healthy BMI range. So if I am 5'9" and built lean and look and feel good from 125lb to 140lb, a curvy by nature woman will still fit inside the BMI "normal" range, which goes up to 168lb. The range considered healthy is from 125lb to 168lb. That is the allowance for variation in body types, that is a 43 pound range, and I don't think that ladies of my height, at their ideal weights, really vary more than forty three pounds from each other.
It's like me arguing that 98lb was OK for me because I looked OK. I did actually look OK, sort of fashion model build, the skinny arms and all, not gaunt or skeletal, but being that light for so long did my body no favors. If you are Jessica Rabbit curvy with a corset that may look amazing, but I think the extra fat is still harmful even if it's beautifully arranged.
Agreed. I've always assumed that the range of healthy weight by BMI was to account for differences in body type. The range for my height is 108-145, according to the CDC website. I am currently 120 and clearly have more weight to lose. I suspect my happy weight will be between 112 and 115. I can only assume that a woman of my same height who can carry 30+ pounds more than I can has a larger frame. When I was at the higher end of the chart I was *definitely* overweight! Physically uncomfortable even.0 -
My grandfather was 11 pounds at birth, and according to his sister "all skin and bones, not an ounce of fat on him." He grew to be a very tall, broad man. He was never overweight, but he was always much bigger than other men. At the end, when he was practically wasted away from cancer, he was still huge. It would have been impossible for him to fit into "regular" clothes, no matter how thin he was. He always had to shop at the "big and tall" store to get clothes to fit his broad shoulders and height. He had a big frame, regardless of how much -- or how little -- flesh was hung upon it.2
-
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?
How do I tell?0 -
enterdanger wrote: »I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Did you have a baby? My feet grew a shoe size with each baby even though I weigh less now than I did when I got pregnant with my first.
I did have my second child in 2011 but still wore a size 10 until 2014 when I started my weight loss journey. Interesting point though!
0 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?
How do I tell?
Your arch can collapse over time making feet flatter and wider, often requiring a size increase. I was a 9-91/2 through my early 20's and now I'm a 10 usually, 11 in some boot styles. I am pretty flat footed now and look like I have flippers instead of feet lol . . . . not cute but some things you just have to laugh off and accept.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
I hate to quote myself but since there's a whole new slew of people who haven't read through this entire thread....
4 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?
How do I tell?
Your arch can collapse over time making feet flatter and wider, often requiring a size increase. I was a 9-91/2 through my early 20's and now I'm a 10 usually, 11 in some boot styles. I am pretty flat footed now and look like I have flippers instead of feet lol . . . . not cute but some things you just have to laugh off and accept.
lol this is probably exactly it then. Its the only explanation, and it definitely makes sense! Thank you
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
I hate to quote myself but since there's a whole new slew of people who haven't read through this entire thread....
And I'll quote my favorite response to that:Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
I hate to quote myself but since there's a whole new slew of people who haven't read through this entire thread....
And I'll quote my favorite response to that:Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
and i'll respond by saying what i said then.
BONE SIZES ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT in people of a relative height. Period.
I also provided evidence for this as well. this is just nonsense and the differences you are suggesting are likely varying as much as we would to different SPECIES. which is why it's more hilarious that someone posted that reddit troll.6 -
And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "heavier" from person to person which contributes to one being "heavier" because they are just "big boned" this is bs.
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.3 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I have long legs and torso. My shoulders are broader than some women's. My mother in law, as an example, has a tiny head and can't even find small hats easily, slender wrists, small slender fingers and feet, and is frail. She appears to have a smaller frame than I do and is only a bit shorter. This is no BS. I don't think I have any "specialness" and am quite ordinary. But I can carry weight and not show it as easily as my mother in law.3 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I have long legs and torso. My shoulders are broader than some women's. My mother in law, as an example, has a tiny head and can't even find small hats easily, slender wrists, small slender fingers and feet, and is frail. She appears to have a smaller frame than I do and is only a bit shorter. This is no BS. I don't think I have any "specialness" and am quite ordinary. But I can carry weight and not show it as easily as my mother in law.
OK.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions