You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
Average human proportions as used in anatomy books and human drawing lessons shown to be fairly accurate to reality:
Take your head measurements (without ears so basically your skull).
Body height is 7-8 heads tall.
Average shoulder width is 2.5-3 heads wide.
Hips are ~75% of the shoulders in men. (without skin and tissue that's only 50% but kinda hard only measuring the middle of a bone).
The halfway point of height is in the pelvic region.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Braus_1921_1.png
You can go measure for yourself if you're way off that or not.
Now we've had multiple calculators trying to tell you your frame size. According to those I'd be small framed with my 6 inch circumference.
According to the shoulder width statistics though I'm above average but still in the 90% group. Also compared to the textbook example my torso is a bit longer than average, my arms are a bit shorter and my head is slightly taller than the average textbook size. My shoe size is above average too. So what is it? Are all my other measurements except those two meaningless or are those calculators just not that good?
To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats large enough to fit me...
1 -
Big boned and large frame is meant to compare people of similar height. Otherwise you just say the person is tall.
Big feet don't have anything to do with either. Neither do long fingers. You can have both and be otherwise normally proportioned.
Basically, there are lots of different proportions. The differences in bones given the same height and 'average' LBM aren't enough on their own to catapult people's ideal weights from 'normal' to 'overweight' and above. With high LBM, then technically someone might be close enough to the boundary where having Morton's toe, which might contribute a gram or two, puts them over for crying out loud.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.
Now in the fitness section she's stating that body shapes are also a myth. Apparently everyone the same height looks exactly the same after they lose weight.Body shapes are a myth. Our bodies aren't designed to carry extra weight on our bottom half, eg, which is what the so-called pear shape is. I used to think I am a pear shape, but after an 8kg weight loss, I realise my hips are much narrower than what I thought.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10338532/exercise-for-hourglass-shape#latest
These things she's bringing up are bound to raise a few eyebrows! Nobody is making her bring them up.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
One person that far off of average proportions not a surprise. 50% of the thread that far off, a surprise. Statistics.
Not that this population would be biased to think that they're bigger proportioned than average.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
Ya, I'm starting to feel both like as a freak and not alone
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
I'm 5'6.5" so not tall for a woman my age from the US.1 -
blues4miles wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »I'm at the middle of the good BMI for my height, btw, and I certainly don't think I look too thin. Some women may prefer to not have ribs and shoulder bones showing, so they'd add 10 lbs on me, though. I have no problem with healthy-weight bones, so I don't mind it at all.
But my point wasn't about how it affects weight. It's much more likely to affect sizing. I've always worn shirts that are at least 2 sizes bigger to accommodate my shoulders.
And my ribcage is also wide, so hearing of women whose bra band size is much lower than mine always freaks me out, because it shows just how much variability there can be (they sound so tiny!). My ribs are completely visible where the band goes, so expecting that fat has a significant part to play in that (for me) sounds silly. My ribs are 35" at the bra band, so it's not like I'm a freak or something, but there are tons of women on here my height who are significantly more petite, and they wear a much lower band size.
I'll never wear an extra-small, yet many 5'6" women do. That's the kind of variability I mean. Like the table thing, yeah.
I'm 5'5" and my ribs are 34" at the bra band, so I hear you. I was actually measuring the other day to double check that I was wearing the right size of bra (which I am, yay), and they ask you to measure it loosely there, then tight... it was the same number. Just can't physically tighten it because there's just not much fat left there at all.
Don't sweat it. I don't think 34" is big. I can't remember being below 36" and am wearing 38" now. Since your cup size is the difference between band and bust, and a 34D is the same cup size as a 32DD, I have a theory there are a boat load of women out there wearing band sizes that are too small partly out of some sort of vanity sizing so they can 'have' a bigger sounding cup size. I see people on bra sizing sites talking about how they 'finally' got fit properly in a 32G or something. When chances are they would fit just as well in a 36D and save money not having to shop at specialty places. But maybe I am wrong here. I consider myself to have a large rib cage and am hoping to both lose some band size from fat coming off my back and some bust size as I drop in weight.
Uh, what? Yes, in the example you gave the actual breasts would fit fine in the cup part, yes, but the band would be huge and offer no support. If the straps are what are holding up the bra instead of the band, the band is too big, period. I used to fit bras for a living and it's much, much, much more common for women to be wearing bands too large than too small in order to fit in the limited range of "standard sizes" available at your average shop.
I had chronic back pain from the time I was thirteen or so from wearing a band that was too big even though the cups fit. My ribcage is narrow, 27 inches, and now that I order 28Fs instead of trying to wear 34DD from VS or a department store or whatever, I am totally pain-free and my clothes all fit right, I cannot believe the difference. (ETA: my chest isn't especially large, either - once you do the correct sizing thing you learn that the letter is only relevant relative to the band size and isn't really an indicator of the absolute size, so it's easier to accept. My bust measurement is only a bit under 33 inches.)
Sorry for the tangent but I feel strongly about this one, I hate that so many women are living with pain and discomfort and weird back fat rolls and stuff when a bra that fits right can eliminate all of that. It was honestly life-changing for me to finally be comfortable and go about my day without ever having to adjust or even notice my bra at all because it's so comfortable and my back feels great.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.
She isn't saying you're delusional for believing your frame is larger than the average. The problem is if you believe that it really makes a large change in body weight. Most of the differences in actual weight of the skeleton don't have to do with the skeleton's frame size, but the actual mineral density of the bones themselves. Most bone mineral content only changes to be less from malnutrition, or if it is above average from some form of resistance training, possibly the resistance of a heavy body in the obese.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
One person that far off of average proportions not a surprise. 50% of the thread that far off, a surprise. Statistics.
Not that this population would be biased to think that they're bigger proportioned than average.
It's not just thinking. We have problems shopping. Especially telling is not being able to buy bracelets or hats big enough.
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
Ya, I'm starting to feel both like as a freak and not alone
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
I'm 5'6.5" so not tall for a woman my age from the US.
Yeah, that might be the reason too. Have you ever done that head size proportion thing from the anatomy lessons?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
Ya, I'm starting to feel both like as a freak and not alone
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
I'm 5'6.5" so not tall for a woman my age from the US.
Yeah, that might be the reason too. Have you ever done that head size proportion thing from the anatomy lessons?
Nope - got a URL?1 -
blues4miles wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »I'm at the middle of the good BMI for my height, btw, and I certainly don't think I look too thin. Some women may prefer to not have ribs and shoulder bones showing, so they'd add 10 lbs on me, though. I have no problem with healthy-weight bones, so I don't mind it at all.
But my point wasn't about how it affects weight. It's much more likely to affect sizing. I've always worn shirts that are at least 2 sizes bigger to accommodate my shoulders.
And my ribcage is also wide, so hearing of women whose bra band size is much lower than mine always freaks me out, because it shows just how much variability there can be (they sound so tiny!). My ribs are completely visible where the band goes, so expecting that fat has a significant part to play in that (for me) sounds silly. My ribs are 35" at the bra band, so it's not like I'm a freak or something, but there are tons of women on here my height who are significantly more petite, and they wear a much lower band size.
I'll never wear an extra-small, yet many 5'6" women do. That's the kind of variability I mean. Like the table thing, yeah.
I'm 5'5" and my ribs are 34" at the bra band, so I hear you. I was actually measuring the other day to double check that I was wearing the right size of bra (which I am, yay), and they ask you to measure it loosely there, then tight... it was the same number. Just can't physically tighten it because there's just not much fat left there at all.
Don't sweat it. I don't think 34" is big. I can't remember being below 36" and am wearing 38" now. Since your cup size is the difference between band and bust, and a 34D is the same cup size as a 32DD, I have a theory there are a boat load of women out there wearing band sizes that are too small partly out of some sort of vanity sizing so they can 'have' a bigger sounding cup size. I see people on bra sizing sites talking about how they 'finally' got fit properly in a 32G or something. When chances are they would fit just as well in a 36D and save money not having to shop at specialty places. But maybe I am wrong here. I consider myself to have a large rib cage and am hoping to both lose some band size from fat coming off my back and some bust size as I drop in weight.
Definitely not accurate. I wish very, very much that I could fit in a 36D, where there is a much bigger, cuter and often cheaper selection of bras. I don't wear 32DDD because of vanity, it's because that's my actual size. When the band is too loose, the straps hurt my shoulders a lot. (I know this because I kept trying to fit into wrong sizes!) It is a pain to find my real size, and there aren't too many cute ones at all.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
One person that far off of average proportions not a surprise. 50% of the thread that far off, a surprise. Statistics.
Not that this population would be biased to think that they're bigger proportioned than average.
It's not just thinking. We have problems shopping. Especially telling is not being able to buy bracelets or hats big enough.
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
You're sure of that for everyone that's posted something to that effect so far? Given how many of those people also conflated large frame with being tall or with being broad shouldered (more to do with musculature, and how square they are), call me a doubting Thomas.
I'm not saying no one posting on this thread is correct. I'm pretty certain all of them aren't.0 -
Just stopping by to say I'm average boned.
Sounds kind of dirty....2 -
Everyone has the same size frame? So, according to that theory, myself and my two sisters will be the exact same size from the outer tip of one collar bone to the outer tip of the other. I'm sorry but that is just not true. Sure, some people claim it is the reason they are obese or overweight which isn't true but two people with the same height and weight can be very different proportions.0
-
cafeaulait7 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.
Now in the fitness section she's stating that body shapes are also a myth. Apparently everyone the same height looks exactly the same after they lose weight.Body shapes are a myth. Our bodies aren't designed to carry extra weight on our bottom half, eg, which is what the so-called pear shape is. I used to think I am a pear shape, but after an 8kg weight loss, I realise my hips are much narrower than what I thought.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10338532/exercise-for-hourglass-shape#latest
These things she's bringing up are bound to raise a few eyebrows! Nobody is making her bring them up.
I don't suppose anyone's pointed her towards mybodygallery.com?0 -
emmaling142 wrote: »Everyone has the same size frame? So, according to that theory, myself and my two sisters will be the exact same size from the outer tip of one collar bone to the outer tip of the other. I'm sorry but that is just not true. Sure, some people claim it is the reason they are obese or overweight which isn't true but two people with the same height and weight can be very different proportions.
Ya, my sister and I are the same height but my feet, wrists, hands, and head are bigger than hers.1 -
And as an aside, if hat size is the measure of choice, then I've got one parent with a large frame (6' tall, needs a hat bigger than commercially available) and one with a small frame (5' 2", needs a hat smaller than commercially available). Yet both look best in the 'normal' BMI range. Both strength train, but don't have more than expected LBM.
I can't really speak to buying bracelets, though - we buy the endless link variety. You just buy the correct length, there's no preset limit.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
One person that far off of average proportions not a surprise. 50% of the thread that far off, a surprise. Statistics.
Not that this population would be biased to think that they're bigger proportioned than average.
It's not just thinking. We have problems shopping. Especially telling is not being able to buy bracelets or hats big enough.
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
You're sure of that for everyone that's posted something to that effect so far? Given how many of those people also conflated large frame with being tall or with being broad shouldered (more to do with musculature, and how square they are), call me a doubting Thomas.
I'm not saying no one posting on this thread is correct. I'm pretty certain all of them aren't.
Some of us are tall AND have a large frame. I'm 6' and have a large frame. I brought up how 2 of my daughters are tall, both 5'11", and one has a large frame and one has a smallish/average frame. None of it has anything to do with weight.
I didn't think about hats when I responded before. If it's not made from a stretchy material that can be forced to fit my big head then I can't wear it. Baseball caps are a good example. The ones with the adjustable plastic thing on them - with most of them I go to the last little hole and still too tight lol. As a woman I don't have much need for that type of hat anyway, but it gives a familiar reference of size.0 -
It's all analog.
This type of deal. The left one is real life average. I don't understand why it says 2 heads wide because it's almost 3 for all of them.
The anatomy textbook picture link from my other post works too for measuring proportions. My head/shoulders are pretty much exactly like the textbook when I overlaid them in photoshop.0 -
I_Will_End_You wrote: »Just stopping by to say I'm average boned.
Sounds kind of dirty....
Well that kind of thing belongs to chitchat.He says after posting a drawing of four naked men.0 -
I can think of two historical examples of skeletal distinction: in the late 1800s, an exhumation in the London church of St. Peter ad Vincula turned up a female skeleton assumed to be that of Anne Boleyn. The description of the skeleton noted a very delicate build, and a very small construction of the upper spine which corresponded to Anne's comment about herself and the headsman: "I hear he's very good, and I have a little neck."
Much more recently, in 2012, in a car park at Leicester, thanks to the researches of John Ashdown Hill, the skeleton of Richard III was found (as a Ricardian myself, I was thrilled!). Richard had severe scoliosis (though not a hunchback), was about 5'8" and his bone structure was described as "gracile".
So, yes, there is indeed differences in skeletal build.
I'm 5'0"; currently around 106.5 pounds (I gained a little last week). My wrists are 5" around and I have a foot size inconveniently between 5.5 and 6.
0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »justrollme wrote: »blues4miles wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »I'm at the middle of the good BMI for my height, btw, and I certainly don't think I look too thin. Some women may prefer to not have ribs and shoulder bones showing, so they'd add 10 lbs on me, though. I have no problem with healthy-weight bones, so I don't mind it at all.
But my point wasn't about how it affects weight. It's much more likely to affect sizing. I've always worn shirts that are at least 2 sizes bigger to accommodate my shoulders.
And my ribcage is also wide, so hearing of women whose bra band size is much lower than mine always freaks me out, because it shows just how much variability there can be (they sound so tiny!). My ribs are completely visible where the band goes, so expecting that fat has a significant part to play in that (for me) sounds silly. My ribs are 35" at the bra band, so it's not like I'm a freak or something, but there are tons of women on here my height who are significantly more petite, and they wear a much lower band size.
I'll never wear an extra-small, yet many 5'6" women do. That's the kind of variability I mean. Like the table thing, yeah.
I'm 5'5" and my ribs are 34" at the bra band, so I hear you. I was actually measuring the other day to double check that I was wearing the right size of bra (which I am, yay), and they ask you to measure it loosely there, then tight... it was the same number. Just can't physically tighten it because there's just not much fat left there at all.
Don't sweat it. I don't think 34" is big. I can't remember being below 36" and am wearing 38" now. Since your cup size is the difference between band and bust, and a 34D is the same cup size as a 32DD, I have a theory there are a boat load of women out there wearing band sizes that are too small partly out of some sort of vanity sizing so they can 'have' a bigger sounding cup size. I see people on bra sizing sites talking about how they 'finally' got fit properly in a 32G or something. When chances are they would fit just as well in a 36D and save money not having to shop at specialty places. But maybe I am wrong here. I consider myself to have a large rib cage and am hoping to both lose some band size from fat coming off my back and some bust size as I drop in weight.
I will say that my rib cage gets larger farther down. It could be that some people are not measuring directly under the bust, but further down the torso and that's why the higher measurements.
That sounds weird! But I'm probably the weird one considering my wide ribs. Mine's the same size(visually, anyway) the whole way up and down, and definitely not smaller at my bra band. I've always been jealous of models who look like their ribs get smaller toward their waist.stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
Ya, I'm starting to feel both like as a freak and not alone
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
I'm 5'6.5" so not tall for a woman my age from the US.
Yeah, that might be the reason too. Have you ever done that head size proportion thing from the anatomy lessons?
My big head (hats are too small) doesn't show up as a big head on my big shoulders, so that's a plus! But my neck is small like my wrists and ankles, so that can look odd, lol.
I don't see many references or models, etc, that show a blocky torso with long, small-boned arms and legs. I've decided my body type is 'Spider'.
From this thread, I might not be the only one! That rocks.0 -
I have wide shoulders, over 19" measured across, but slender bones, so my shirt size is delimited by shoulders not boobs - and I stay at the lower end of healthy BMI. My frame, the outline of my figure is defined by my bones - shoulders, ribs, hips, all of them are about as small as they are gonna get, the skeleton reaches my outer edges. My oldest daughter has a similar frame but thicker bones (gymnast - my wrists are 5.5", hers 7.5") and when she was in the same clothing size as me, weighed about 20 pounds more.
But the original post, that one should not say that a large frame dooms them to be fat, that is correct. You are also correct that what looks like "big bones" can turn out to be fat, not bones. Though heavy people do get stronger, bigger bones in general, from carrying all that weight, those denser bones have to weigh something, right?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
A thread like this would probably attract a disproportionately large number of people with large frames. After all, they're the ones being specifically pointed out as being delusional.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
A thread like this would probably attract a disproportionately large number of people with large frames. After all, they're the ones being specifically pointed out as being delusional.
I've seen statistically improbable distributions on some TOM threads - these give the impression that a large amount of women have sleeping baby demons inside their wombs that wake up once a month. But I think it's the thread titles that attract women who have a particularly tough time at TOM.1 -
Yup, selection bias in who responds.
But also: Some of the folks who seem to be saying "this thread makes it look like everyone thinks they have a large frame and they're using it as an excuse to be overweight or an excuse to trash the BMI system" are ignoring a bunch of posts on the thread from people who say they have:- a small (outlier) frame;
- a mixture of so-called standard frame-size markers (like big feet/hands but small hips); or
- some/all body elements typically considered 'larger frame' but who've still found a happy weight well inside the normal BMI range.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
You're confusing the general population with a self-selected group responding to a thread titled "you don't have big bones or a big frame." I would absolutely expect the latter to skew into the big-bone tail, statistically speaking.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.
Large frame or not the use of "I'm big boned" is no excuse for high body fat levels! I have swimmers shoulders I don't fit into most women's shirts because they are broad.......but actually it's not the bone it's that I'm lucky and I hold a lot of muscle there!!!....means tank tops look awesome on me and I don't buy shirts! I've got long legs as well so a lot of jeans are too short.....but that's my bone length not because I'm "big boned" my frame/skeleton size came in at above average for a 34 year old woman (that's when I had tests) and the extra weight from it was well under 1kg I wish I could find my darn dexa scan results!!! They will most certainly put this into perspective........I think what's more important is your body type are you Mesomorph, Ectomorph or Endomorph are you apple or pear shape? Where are you prone to hold fat?
There is very minimal difference in the weight/thickness of bone structure in a fully grown adult!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K 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