You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Options
Replies
-
-
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.
My obstetrician would disagree with you vehemently. He always evaluates frame size during pregnancy because of how it impacts ability to deliver. But shoot . . . . he's just a doctor who also happens to be an adjunct professor at a medical school. I'm sure you know better than him. (Not.)
And the baby. My son was born built like a linebacker. Broad shoulders, all the weight in his upper body. He is 14 and still has broad shoulders0 -
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 forgot about shoulder pads LOL. I couldn't wear them either without looking ready to hit the field for some football. And waists....even being overweight now I have to take my pants in at the waist or I'm constantly hiking them up and belts don't work because then they are all bunched up and look/feel horrible.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.
Yep!
0 -
-
Gawd! I was the same way. With the shoulders. I loved the 80s because I could always find jackets that fit. The oughts were hard. All those tiny shrunken cropped jackets.
When I shopped for 'career wear' at Ann Taylor in the eighties I wore a two in skirts (equivalent to today's size zero) and bought size 8 jackets for shoulder width seam to seam and overall arm length. I would remove the pads, and have the waists tailored in. Ahhhh youth...
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
+10 -
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
0 -
@stevencloser
Thank you for that. Poetic justice.2 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »I'm confused. Are you saying we are all the same bone size and width?
That sounds like what he's saying, but I think instead he's just trying to be provocative.0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions