You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
summerkissed 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.
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!
No one. Not one person in this thread, or in any of the threads OP posted in, used being "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse for high body fat levels.
Somatypes are bunk. A complete myth. They have zero basis in science.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?
BMI is outdated we know that! I'm an aus size 10 and weight 62kg when I started lifting weights I was 64kg and an aus size 8.......so I wear a larger clothing size and I'm 2kg lighter.......the difference is my fat and muscle percentage!!
I'm also wondering how you know you have slender bones? Are you both gymnasts? Do you both train the same? Do you both have the same strength and fitness levels?0 -
summerkissed wrote: »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?
BMI is outdated we know that! I'm an aus size 10 and weight 62kg when I started lifting weights I was 64kg and an aus size 8.......so I wear a larger clothing size and I'm 2kg lighter.......the difference is my fat and muscle percentage!!
I'm also wondering how you know you have slender bones? Are you both gymnasts? Do you both train the same? Do you both have the same strength and fitness levels?
BMK is not outdated. It is meant as a screening, not to be accurate for everyone.
If you fall outside of the healthy range, there are further screenings to determine if you are actually overweight or if there are other factors.
As its been said many times in this thread, for the majority it is a pretty good indicator.0 -
Ok case in point. I have a friend who is the same height as me. She's very slender; but more than being slender, she has tiny wrists compared to mine. Mine measure just shy of 7". Hers are just a shade over 5". We have a similar foot length, but my ankles are nearly twice as wide as hers (she needs a AA shoe!). And our collarbones.. oy vey. She has these beautiful, spindly, fine collar bones that look like delicate bird wings. Mine resemble nothing so much as hot dogs. There's nothing delicate about them.
Her optimal weight is around 140 - 145 lbs. Mine is around 165 - 170 lbs.
We definitely have different frames. And that's what's meant by "big bones". The term "big bones" refers not just to the skeletal frame, but all the other stuff, too. You know, muscles, and the tissue that fills in all that space.0 -
BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method0
-
stevencloser wrote: »
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.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...
Just how many do you think there be, statistically? MFP has a large following, and the responses to this thread hardly represent a random sampling of it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it has drawn the attention of a disproportionate number of members who are more than a standard deviation or two from the mean.0 -
Please correct me if wrong OP but wasn't this thread about overweight people using "I'm big boned" as an excuse for there weight? Cause that's the impression I got.0
-
eringurl33 wrote: »Hmm. I have a big head.. Will that shrink as I lose weight? I'd love to be able to buy hats from a normal store!
Also - I'm only being half sarcastic. I really do have a big head. : (
I am 5'7", 275 (down from a highest of 311, so I'll take it for now)... and I can wear a child sized hat. I'm not sure what was going on during my gestation because I have my paternal grandmother's larger frame (even were I at goal weight, I'm still broad shouldered and wide hipped) and this tiny little head.
Like you, I'd love to buy a normal hat and not have it sink to cover my eyes.
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Please correct me if wrong OP but wasn't this thread about overweight people using "I'm big boned" as an excuse for there weight? Cause that's the impression I got.
Not when taken in context with several other posts she's made lately.0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Please correct me if wrong OP but wasn't this thread about overweight people using "I'm big boned" as an excuse for there weight? Cause that's the impression I got.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I had TWO doctors tell me that women should always be in the bottom 10 lbs of the "healthy" BMI range. For me this would be patently absurd. 125-135 lbs? Not even the friend I mentioned above, who is very demonstrably thin with very little muscle at all, doesn't meet that.
Earlier someone brought up Northern European genetics. Its true, people from those areas tend towards being tall, having large frames, and putting on more muscle.
This chart has some interesting information on it. There's more to the differences than just "people in wealthy nations eat more".
indexmundi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/weight-of-the-world.jpg0 -
Researchers are finding out that humans with a mutation in the MC4r gene are more likely to have stocky bodies, even as children, and be prone to obesity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19803416 This means that the individual will have thick waists, heavier bones and be more prone to gaining weight, both from muscle and fat.
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method
And yet WHR is also a screener, and can have outliers. Some sources consider it useful mainly in assessing fat distribution in people who are overweight/obese, rather than as a screener for who is obese/overweight vs. not. (Even people with relatively low bodyfat can have a higher WHR, such as women who have a straight-line-ish build vs. hourglass.)
None of these screeners (WHR, BMI, or waist circumference, which is also used) is perfect, even in their assigned niche, in the sense of having no outliers. Bodyfat percentage may be better correlated with health risks in some ways, but it's not an easy-to-determine screener.
If our goal is to get some rough guide as to what might be a reasonable body weight for someone, BMI seems more useful to me, in that it involves a weight range. (Yes, people who "should" be at a lower weight can use it as an excuse/justification to remain at a higher one.) If our goal is a health screener, it would seem to matter what we're screening for, and who we're screening.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »summerkissed 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.
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!
No one. Not one person in this thread, or in any of the threads OP posted in, used being "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse for high body fat levels.
Somatypes are bunk. A complete myth. They have zero basis in science.
It's somatotypes btw and they still have there place because it's been since proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types without the connection to personality0 -
summerkissed wrote: »BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method
And waist/hip ratio is not?
?
?
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method
And waist/hip ratio is not?
?
?
It's the fat around the organs that they are most worried about now so a lot of doctors are using that instead of the BMI0 -
summerkissed wrote: »BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method
I'll have to keep that in minds next time I go to the doctor, that I'm going to be told I'm obese and at increased risk of heart disease and diabetes0 -
summerkissed wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »summerkissed 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.
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!
No one. Not one person in this thread, or in any of the threads OP posted in, used being "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse for high body fat levels.
Somatypes are bunk. A complete myth. They have zero basis in science.
It's somatotypes btw and they still have there place because it's been since proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types without the connection to personality
What? What connection to personality? Also, citation needed that "somatotypes have their place because it's been proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types." (What?). Peer-reviewed studies or it doesn't count.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »summerkissed 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.
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!
No one. Not one person in this thread, or in any of the threads OP posted in, used being "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse for high body fat levels.
Somatypes are bunk. A complete myth. They have zero basis in science.
It's somatotypes btw and they still have there place because it's been since proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types without the connection to personality
What? What connection to personality? Also, citation needed that "somatotypes have their place because it's been proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types." (What?). Peer-reviewed studies or it doesn't count.
What connection? But I thought you knew about somatotypes you said that they are a myth so I assumed you knew what it was to begin with
Ps I couldn't care less about spelling0 -
summerkissed wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »summerkissed 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.
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!
No one. Not one person in this thread, or in any of the threads OP posted in, used being "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse for high body fat levels.
Somatypes are bunk. A complete myth. They have zero basis in science.
It's somatotypes btw and they still have there place because it's been since proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types without the connection to personality
What? What connection to personality? Also, citation needed that "somatotypes have their place because it's been proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types." (What?). Peer-reviewed studies or it doesn't count.
What connection? But I thought you knew about somatotypes you said that they are a myth so I assumed you knew what it was to begin with
Ps I couldn't care less about spelling
The sentence I quoted makes little grammatical sense. Please clarify it. Then, please provide peer-reviewed studies to support your claim that somatotypes are... whatever you are claiming they are (not sure what you're claiming because I can't understand the sentence in question).0 -
summerkissed wrote: »
LOL I've been all three of these types in the past year!1 -
summerkissed wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »summerkissed 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.
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!
No one. Not one person in this thread, or in any of the threads OP posted in, used being "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse for high body fat levels.
Somatypes are bunk. A complete myth. They have zero basis in science.
It's somatotypes btw and they still have there place because it's been since proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types without the connection to personality
What? What connection to personality? Also, citation needed that "somatotypes have their place because it's been proven there to be some accuracy to the distinct body types." (What?). Peer-reviewed studies or it doesn't count.
What connection? But I thought you knew about somatotypes you said that they are a myth so I assumed you knew what it was to begin with
Ps I couldn't care less about spelling
Yet you cared enough to correct mine.1 -
summerkissed wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method
And waist/hip ratio is not?
?
?
It's the fat around the organs that they are most worried about now so a lot of doctors are using that instead of the BMI
I would say a lot of go yours are using waist / hip measurement in conjunction with BMI - not instead of it.
Which is what people, have said all along - BMI is a good screening tool,not the be all and end all.
0 -
A lot of doctors, not go yours.0
-
Also just to put some proportion in this thread I am not big boned but I agree the idea that all body frames are the same is nonsense.
I have the opposite problem to some posters here - my fingers are long and narrow ( my mother always called them piano players fingers) and my feet are small and narrow - I have difficulty with shoes because they are often too wide, despite fitting in length.0 -
summerkissed wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »BMI is outdated and doctors here in Australia are steering away from the use of it and using the hip to waist ratio as a more accurate method of determining weight related health issues....BMI is a very very basic method
And waist/hip ratio is not?
?
?
It's the fat around the organs that they are most worried about now so a lot of doctors are using that instead of the BMI
When I was 90lbs heavier, my ratio want fat off from healthy. While I carried my weight "well" it didn't actually mean I was healthy.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
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.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...
Just how many do you think there be, statistically? MFP has a large following, and the responses to this thread hardly represent a random sampling of it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it has drawn the attention of a disproportionate number of members who are more than a standard deviation or two from the mean.
On average? If 90% are in the normal shoulder width group and we assume an equal bell curve in both directions, 5% would have bigger than average bones, with most of them still being barely above the average, so I'd say, less than 2%, possibly 1% of the population have noticably wider shoulders than the general population. Probably the same with other measurements too. In here there's obviously more than that but as was pointed out, I guess they're more drawn to this thread to begin with.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.
This--so this. I'm with you hon. The people saying our measurements are normal--because "statistics" have not lived with the problem. Bone size difference is real, just take a look at nature. The difference between a workhorse and a thoroughbred for instance--same height, different bone structure. Why oh why is it so hard to understand in humans?0 -
So, I completely agree that people have different frame sizes.
However, I'm an example of someone who used to think that I was "big boned" when I was just fat. I've always had a larger ring size (my engagement ring is a size 9, which for a 5'3" female is pretty big) and when I would do the wrist measurement, it always came out as a large frame. This thinking really hurt me because I really believed that there was no point to even trying to lose weight because I would always be big.
Then something changed and I decided to lose weight anyway. Even if I ended up larger, I would still aim for a lower body fat and look muscular. So I started losing. Funny thing happened - my rings are huge on me and my fitbit slowly but surely got looser. I was seriously shocked, not kidding. I didn't think my wrists/fingers would have so much fat around them that they would change so drastically. Now when I do the measurements, I'm medium framed, and it could go down even more as I reach my ideal weight. I'm waiting until I'm done losing weight to get my rings resized.
Basically, my point isn't that I don't believe that people have large frames. Some people absolutely do. But I do believe that you can't really use any of the online measurements unless you are close to your ideal weight (by body fat %) or else they just don't work. A lot of obese people will believe they are large framed when they are not because the measurements don't work when you have excess body fat.2 -
I find it baffling that this even needs to be a contentious point of discussion, but then... this is MFP. It's clear just from observing normal, healthy BMI-range individuals that even people who are the same height can have wildly different body structure. Some have narrower hips; some have broader shoulders; some have long limbs; some have short torsos, etc. Humans are such a wonderfully diverse group.
Some are differences due to where people hold fat/muscle, but some are definitely due to bones being different lengths. I do believe that most of the population can have a healthy weight inside the normal BMI range regardless of bone structure - otherwise it would be a completely useless measurement tool. There will always be outliers (like @kshama2001 ) - that's the nature of statistics.
I don't claim to have a large bone structure. I really can't be sure what I look like until I'm closer to my goal weight. I have what I call "man hands" (larger than every boyfriend I've had) and large feet (10.5 ) and wider hips, and I measured my elbow breadth at 2.75". Does that make me "big boned?" No idea, and, honestly, I don't care. Labels aren't really my thing.0 -
I disagree with you that big boned doesn't exist. I have large hands and feet, broad shoulders and wide hips.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