You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
There is such thing as a big frame but not to the effect that some people claim.0
-
I thought I was a big boned-woman before I lost weight. I felt solid, and thought I just had a little weight to lose. Now, after losing some weight, I realize I'm a much smaller woman than I thought, and need to keep losing. I lift weights, so I have a lot of muscle, but it was really kind of shocking to see the smaller person that was living under that hard fat.1
-
I fear it is not the calculators that are wrong in this instance. Lurking troll perhaps??1
-
Why do people care whether the reason some (hypothetical) random stranger on the Internet cites for a high BMI is valid?
*edited to add "hypothetical" because OP wasn't even talking about someone specific -- I don't understand why this is an issue.0 -
Body shapes differ a lot. My curse is short legs and long torso. I am just a shade under 6 feet tall and I have a 29 inch inseam. That isn't terribly normal. I have a friend that is shorter than me that isn't fat at all and isn't a bodybuilder and his ribcage is huge. Definitely big boned. Other friends my same height that have tiny frames all at good weights. Yes there are different body builds in so many ways that can impact what is a good weight for us.0
-
You're measuring wrist with flesh. How much body fat % would affect this. I'm speaking of actual bones themselves with no mass on or around it.suziecue20 wrote: »Frame width and structure vary from person to person. People can be the same height, but width between clavicles and hips can vary greatly. As for "big boned", if you take into consideration height, length of bones, etc. the CIRCUMFERENCE by % for bones for each individual is fairly close. EX: wrist measurement (radius and ulna bones) is say 5 inches around for a person 5'2", but is 6 inches around for a person 6'0.
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
I am 5ft and have a wrist circumference of 6" which does not correlate with your statement. However my feet are only a size 4
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
I get you now - apologies.
0 -
SacredCaramel wrote: »The BMI chart is completely inaccurate, and doesn't account for Lean Body Mass. According to the BMI, based on my age, gender and height, my "no longer overweight" ideal weight is 165. This is not achievable or sustainable for me, and I will look ridiculously thin. Visiting a dietician who can measure LBM electrostatically will help determine where you need to end up. I carry about 20 extra pounds of bone, muscle, etc. I don't plan on losing that at all.
BMI chart does not apply to athletes. For the average person who does not spend a good amount of time exercising, it shows a pretty accurate range
To add to this -
It was never meant to apply to everyone. It is a screening.
"A high BMI can be an indicator of high body fatness. BMI can be used as a screening tool but is not diagnostic of the body fatness or health of an individual.
To determine if a high BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider would need to perform further assessments. These assessments might include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, family history, and other appropriate health screening"
So an athlete might initially be screened as "overweight" according to BMI but further screening would show they are not.
For a good portion of the general population it would be a pretty good indicator.
That said, I am one of those who sit at the higher end of my BMI even when lean. I have actually been in the "overweight" category (just) during a health assessment at work. The nurse did another assessment and recorded me in the "healthy" category.
ETA -
Sorry forgot my source
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/0 -
I don't know if this is pertinent to this discussion, but what about those women who can't give birth naturally because their pelvis is too narrow. Obviously these women have a smaller frame then the women who have no problems popping out babies.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »And musculature (or fat) can give a very different impression of someone's "frame size".
Look at Frank Zane for example.
Looks really buff because he is really buff. Looks really wide, broad shouldered too, right?
I once overlaid a picture of me over this, adjusting the size to be equal and guess what, his shoulder width to head ratio is almost identical to little ol' me. The muscle definition and the way he's posing makes it look broader.
A friend of mine does somehow have a much flatter ribcage than me, also making him look broader, even though our shoulder widths, again, are almost identical. Optical illusions are a hell of a drug.
This is a funny post since I just read something interesting. They were talking about how buff and in shape Sylvester Stallone was for Rocky 3 and Stallone revealed that he weighed in close to 150 pounds!! He played a heavyweight fighter in all the Rocky movies, I thought he weighed in the 180's at least! I was shocked.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »And musculature (or fat) can give a very different impression of someone's "frame size".
Look at Frank Zane for example.
Looks really buff because he is really buff. Looks really wide, broad shouldered too, right?
I once overlaid a picture of me over this, adjusting the size to be equal and guess what, his shoulder width to head ratio is almost identical to little ol' me. The muscle definition and the way he's posing makes it look broader.
A friend of mine does somehow have a much flatter ribcage than me, also making him look broader, even though our shoulder widths, again, are almost identical. Optical illusions are a hell of a drug.
This is a funny post since I just read something interesting. They were talking about how buff and in shape Sylvester Stallone was for Rocky 3 and Stallone revealed that he weighed in close to 150 pounds!! He played a heavyweight fighter in all the Rocky movies, I thought he weighed in the 180's at least! I was shocked.
150lbs?? That's the same weight as me. He's pretty short though,right?
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know if this is pertinent to this discussion, but what about those women who can't give birth naturally because their pelvis is too narrow. Obviously these women have a smaller frame then the women who have no problems popping out babies.
Actually, what you are referring to is called Cephalopelvic Disproportion, and while it is common for doctors to over diagnose this in cases of "failure to progress" during childbirth, it's actually incredibly rare and usually accompanied by other abnormalities in her structure or anatomy. One such situation is when the pelvis fails to open to allow birth, which can be caused by diabetes and genetic factors. The pelvis has joints that loosen and open to allow the child to pass through, just as the baby's skull has the soft spot, to allow it to shrink down to fit.
"Cephalopelvic disproportion is rare. According to the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM), CPD occurs in 1 out of 250 pregnancies."
In addition to being a very over-used and misapplied excuse for "failure to progress, it's also near impossible to diagnose until DURING labor. Ultrasounds are only guesstimations of fetal weight and size.
http://americanpregnancy.org/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/
I'm a certified doula, was working my way toward midwife when oops, got married, had baby, stayed home with him:)0 -
Thanks so much for the detailed explanation @CoffeeNCardio .
The reason I asked is because my daughter in law recently had her first baby via a C section and her doctor informed her that any future bubs will have to be delivered this way as her birth canal is too narrow.
This was her simplistic way of trying to explain it to me.0 -
Women with linebacker shoulders represent! I have a huge rib cage too. It was like that when I was 13 years old and weighed 104 pounds, and it didn't get any smaller as I aged. I always have to buy blazers a size up and have them tailored in. I always feel like God intended me to be six inches taller than I am and had to cram everything downward at the last minute.0
-
I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!
It's more complicated than that. You can have bigger hands/feet, but smaller pelvis or other skeletal parts.
At 5'5", I have giant paws, require a size 10 ring (usually have to buy men's), a big head (literally - 7.5 or bigger hat size - and maybe figuratively, too), good-sized feet (9.5 or so), and broad shoulders (nothing smaller than a large fits the shoulders).
Just fat? Mmm, not so much, I think: BMI 20.3, weight 122 pounds. I'm still wearing the size 6 jeans, but I think size 4 would fit (I can put both giant fists inside the 6 without strain). Just crazy thin? Not that, either, I'd say. Built like a boy: Broad shoulders, narrow-ish hips (35"), no booty by nature despite being fairly strong, no breasts (post-mastectomy, not that that's skeletal).
IMO, that's why the BMI ranges have to be so wide. You can mix a bunch of different skeletal details on any given human body, and that will influence what weight looks and feels best (along with muscularity, where fat is carried, and personal preference). Even then, BMI has outliers. "Big boned" can be an excuse for some overweight people, but isn't necessarily an excuse (i.e., an incorrect explanation) for variations in healthy weight.0 -
-
I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!
It's more complicated than that. You can have bigger hands/feet, but smaller pelvis or other skeletal parts.
At 5'5", I have giant paws, require a size 10 ring (usually have to buy men's), a big head (literally - 7.5 or bigger hat size - and maybe figuratively, too), good-sized feet (9.5 or so), and broad shoulders (nothing smaller than a large fits the shoulders).
Just fat? Mmm, not so much, I think: BMI 20.3, weight 122 pounds. I'm still wearing the size 6 jeans, but I think size 4 would fit (I can put both giant fists inside the 6 without strain). Just crazy thin? Not that, either, I'd say. Built like a boy: Broad shoulders, narrow-ish hips (35"), no booty by nature despite being fairly strong, no breasts (post-mastectomy, not that that's skeletal).
IMO, that's why the BMI ranges have to be so wide. You can mix a bunch of different skeletal details on any given human body, and that will influence what weight looks and feels best (along with muscularity, where fat is carried, and personal preference). Even then, BMI has outliers. "Big boned" can be an excuse for some overweight people, but isn't necessarily an excuse (i.e., an incorrect explanation) for variations in healthy weight.
For me, 122 is not fathomable. I'm also 5'5.
I think I was 140-145 in this pic (barely within healthy BMI). I didn't have a scale that day and some of it as dehydration. I also will never be a size 6 pant.
0 -
I thought I was a big boned-woman before I lost weight. I felt solid, and thought I just had a little weight to lose. Now, after losing some weight, I realize I'm a much smaller woman than I thought, and need to keep losing. I lift weights, so I have a lot of muscle, but it was really kind of shocking to see the smaller person that was living under that hard fat.
Exactly. I am still shocked to see just how tiny I was at a respectable 60kg. I looked very different, very solid at 78kg. My shoulders are "broader" because of the extra fat on them. My back is "broader", everything about me is broader.
0 -
I thought I was a big boned-woman before I lost weight. I felt solid, and thought I just had a little weight to lose. Now, after losing some weight, I realize I'm a much smaller woman than I thought, and need to keep losing. I lift weights, so I have a lot of muscle, but it was really kind of shocking to see the smaller person that was living under that hard fat.
Exactly. I am still shocked to see just how tiny I was at a respectable 60kg. I looked very different, very solid at 78kg. My shoulders are "broader" because of the extra fat on them. My back is "broader", everything about me is broader.
What so just because you lost weight and it didn't show you have a big frame, that means it's the same for everyone!? I don't think so, honestly a thread full of posts and yet you're still right? Jeez1 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »
You are around 20cm taller than I am. Your shoulders are proportional to your height so yes, they're broader than mine. But are they broader than one would expect for a woman of your height? I doubt that.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!
It's more complicated than that. You can have bigger hands/feet, but smaller pelvis or other skeletal parts.
At 5'5", I have giant paws, require a size 10 ring (usually have to buy men's), a big head (literally - 7.5 or bigger hat size - and maybe figuratively, too), good-sized feet (9.5 or so), and broad shoulders (nothing smaller than a large fits the shoulders).
Just fat? Mmm, not so much, I think: BMI 20.3, weight 122 pounds. I'm still wearing the size 6 jeans, but I think size 4 would fit (I can put both giant fists inside the 6 without strain). Just crazy thin? Not that, either, I'd say. Built like a boy: Broad shoulders, narrow-ish hips (35"), no booty by nature despite being fairly strong, no breasts (post-mastectomy, not that that's skeletal).
IMO, that's why the BMI ranges have to be so wide. You can mix a bunch of different skeletal details on any given human body, and that will influence what weight looks and feels best (along with muscularity, where fat is carried, and personal preference). Even then, BMI has outliers. "Big boned" can be an excuse for some overweight people, but isn't necessarily an excuse (i.e., an incorrect explanation) for variations in healthy weight.
For me, 122 is not fathomable. I'm also 5'5.
I think I was 140-145 in this pic (barely within healthy BMI). I didn't have a scale that day and some of it as dehydration. I also will never be a size 6 pant.
Yup. Very different. You look great at that weight, obviously. You're leaner and more muscular than I (and way younger - I'm 60), as well as having a more 'womanly' shape (even ignoring the no-breast thing in my case). I was quite fat at 140-145 still. Sorry I don't have a sensible photo to share.
0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »
You are around 20cm taller than I am. Your shoulders are proportional to your height so yes, they're broader than mine. But are they broader than one would expect for a woman of your height? I doubt that.
That's just such a weird thing to doubt about someone. Do you also doubt shoe sizes of folks at the same height? It's just a little bizarre.
Can't you look at images of thin famous people and tell when it comes to shoulders? They aren't exactly hidden, and when you can see the shoulder bones it should be pretty clear what's going on. That's if you can't trust science on the matter, lol.1 -
-
There you go OP: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm
Drs believe that bones come in different sizes.1 -
But different people are different? This is me 3 pounds away from 'overweight' for my height, BMI wise.
My hip bones are jutting out because *drumroll please* I got wide hips. Some people ain't got wide hips and would, conceivably, not look so pokey at this weight/height.1 -
I don't really mean to bring up this again but how big are those differences anyway?
I mean, we constantly say "no your metabolism isn't high/low" here too, right? We know metabolisms vary between people obviously, what we mean is that it isn't that different between two people except for fringe cases of <5% of people.
So, is there huge differences between frame sizes for people of the same size to be able to say stuff like "I'm build like an Amazonian" and stuff like that?
I'd almost think that posture and muscle mass/definition is going to create bigger differences in perceived frame size than your actual frame size.0 -
Remember the 80's when it was all the rage to wear shoulder pads in your jackets or blouses? I actually had to take mine out because they looked ridiculous my shoulders are so broad. And that was back before I gained weight and I was looking very good. I still had to buy clothing in larger sizes, 14 - 18 US, because my hips were so wide and my shoulders were so broad. Then we would take the jeans that I would buy home and alter the waistline a couple of inches so that they wouldn't fall down. Yes. I have a large frame. No I have not always needed to lose weight. But now I do. What's the big deal.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one! I had maybe one dress that had really thin shoulder pads that I kept in because it sagged a little funny without them.
For casual wear (tees, polos, sweats, etc) I always go to the mens department because they are cut a little broader in the shoulders and the sleeves tend to be longer.
When I first learned to sew, the first pattern adjustment I learned was how to lengthen sleeves. The second was how to adjust for broad shoulders. You have to cut the top of the armhole wider, but on the back you also need to cut the back wider from just below the bustline to accommodate the wider shoulder blades. From the mid-eighties on, I finally had clothing that actually fit and was comfortable.0 -
Of course people have different frame sizes. They also are genetically predisposed to gain fat in different areas which determines their body shape.
Unfortunately, despite this, most people who claim that someone is just "big boned" are wrong.
People of a relative height may experience some variation in bone size, however, the human skeleton only accounts for about 10% total weight of a healthy (BMI) individual. So even if someone has a small frame vs a large frame of the same height, we're talking a weight difference of.. what? 10-15 pounds?
But let's not pretend that there is SUCH a wide variation. It is simply not the case.
Also, considering most people are referring to body shape (where we gain fat/soft tissue) let's also not confuse this as being "big boned". Most of our skeletons looks remarkably similar. And most of our bodies will look similar at low body fat percentages.
You would think with the way people are on here talking, that the difference is as big as human vs. gorilla or something. -_-
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »I don't really mean to bring up this again but how big are those differences anyway?
I mean, we constantly say "no your metabolism isn't high/low" here too, right? We know metabolisms vary between people obviously, what we mean is that it isn't that different between two people except for fringe cases of <5% of people.
So, is there huge differences between frame sizes for people of the same size to be able to say stuff like "I'm build like an Amazonian" and stuff like that?
I'd almost think that posture and muscle mass/definition is going to create bigger differences in perceived frame size than your actual frame size.
I think this is a valid comment but I don't think one can isolate frame size really
Because I have a larger frame and a specific body type I would look less than healthy if my weight or musculature dropped below a certain level ...I know this partly because I have an eating disordered sister with a similar body type but a very different look
At my height the BMI weight range spans 125 to 165lbs ...that's 40lbs made up with bones, muscles and fat
I think it may be different to metabolism0 -
But different people are different? This is me 3 pounds away from 'overweight' for my height, BMI wise.
My hip bones are jutting out because *drumroll please* I got wide hips. Some people ain't got wide hips and would, conceivably, not look so pokey at this weight/height.
Sorry, but your weight has to do with your muscle mass and where you gain body fat.
Why do you look that way at that height/weight/bmi? Hint: it has nothing to do with your bones.
Also, i don't see any "jutting". I see normal hips.0 -
Remember the 80's when it was all the rage to wear shoulder pads in your jackets or blouses? I actually had to take mine out because they looked ridiculous my shoulders are so broad. And that was back before I gained weight and I was looking very good. I still had to buy clothing in larger sizes, 14 - 18 US, because my hips were so wide and my shoulders were so broad. Then we would take the jeans that I would buy home and alter the waistline a couple of inches so that they wouldn't fall down. Yes. I have a large frame. No I have not always needed to lose weight. But now I do. What's the big deal.
Oh God, shoulderpads - I cut them out too.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