Does [Frame} size matter?
sak20011
Posts: 94 Member
I'm (almost) 5'2" and 120#. My goal is 115.
My entire life I thought I had a small frame, because I am petite with small features, small feet, and a small head (I can wear a big kids hat). At the same time, I have always felt kind of wide/chubby, never one of those slender petite waifs but I figured it was because of extra body weight. Its true that I have broad shoulders and hips...and although I am a petite in height I can't wear petite tops because they're too small in the shoulders.
Out of curiosity on one of the BMI calculators I just calculated my frame size--both wrist and elbow have me at large, and firmly so.
Does frame size matter in calculating your ideal weight? Or should it only be body fat (which I haven't figured out how to calculate accurately).
My entire life I thought I had a small frame, because I am petite with small features, small feet, and a small head (I can wear a big kids hat). At the same time, I have always felt kind of wide/chubby, never one of those slender petite waifs but I figured it was because of extra body weight. Its true that I have broad shoulders and hips...and although I am a petite in height I can't wear petite tops because they're too small in the shoulders.
Out of curiosity on one of the BMI calculators I just calculated my frame size--both wrist and elbow have me at large, and firmly so.
Does frame size matter in calculating your ideal weight? Or should it only be body fat (which I haven't figured out how to calculate accurately).
0
Replies
-
As I understand it, frame size is taken into account in BMI, which is one reason the ideal range is so wide.5
-
Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it. The heavier you are, the bigger your wrist and elbow are. The clue for me is that you have broad shoulders (and possibly broad hip bones). My sister and I are the same height, but her build is more slender than mine. She's about 2-3 sizes smaller than me both top and bottom and we are both in the normal weight range. It's not a big deal. Just shoot for the top of your BMI range and reassess at that time.4
-
I'm 5ft 1" (almost) !
This is the first time I've heard of frame size - so just found out mine -large.
I lost a lot of weight with weight watchers but couldn't maintain at the target weight. I knew it was too low - and if I look up weight range for large frame then this is confirmed. This time I'll listen to my body when weight plateaus. This will be in large frame range - if things are the same as last time.1 -
I'm (almost) 5'2" and 120#. My goal is 115.
My entire life I thought I had a small frame, because I am petite with small features, small feet, and a small head (I can wear a big kids hat). At the same time, I have always felt kind of wide/chubby, never one of those slender petite waifs but I figured it was because of extra body weight. Its true that I have broad shoulders and hips...and although I am a petite in height I can't wear petite tops because they're too small in the shoulders.
Out of curiosity on one of the BMI calculators I just calculated my frame size--both wrist and elbow have me at large, and firmly so.
Does frame size matter in calculating your ideal weight? Or should it only be body fat (which I haven't figured out how to calculate accurately).
Frame size matters...body fat matters...muscle mass matters. That is why BMI is a range. My wife has a medium to large frame and athletic build and a far amount of muscle...at 125-130 Lbs, she's pretty lean (5'2")...she would look absolutely ill at the low end of BMI and it would be completely inappropriate for her to try to get there. She'd also have to torch some muscle mass which seems silly to me.4 -
Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.5
-
Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it. The heavier you are, the bigger your wrist and elbow are. The clue for me is that you have broad shoulders (and possibly broad hip bones). My sister and I are the same height, but her build is more slender than mine. She's about 2-3 sizes smaller than me both top and bottom and we are both in the normal weight range. It's not a big deal. Just shoot for the top of your BMI range and reassess at that time.
Definitely have wide hip bones. My midwife said first time she met me--oh good, most petite women don't have such wide hips. and its true, my first was a hair under 9lbs and while labor was long, pushing was 15 min. luckily he also had my small head....
anyway, my bmi is now 21.9 so middle of the range. I think I'm going to start to focus on body comp and see if that gets me where I want to be (I still for sure have fat on me but could use more muscle).2 -
Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it.
I've always wondered what is an accurate measure of frame size. Is there one?
I always said/thought I had a medium/large frame, but as I lose more weight I'm not sure. My frame seems "smaller" (probably because there's less weight on it) and it's been so long since I was actually in shape I can't really recall what I looked like then.2 -
wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.5
-
JessicaMcB wrote: »Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.
I'll represent the other side of the spectrum: I'm 5'10" and the max on the BMI chart is 178. The lowest I ever got was 167, and did not like how my upper body looked. The lowest I ever want to be again is 175. At 167, I was in a pant size 10, and still needed jackets in a 12, but any sleeveless tops could be a 4 or 6. Frame matters.
I also trust waist hip ratio for health more that BMI, but that requires accurate measurements and isn't as simple as a weigh related measure like BMI.
2 -
I think it matters. Also, how you carry your fat. All of mine goes straight to my midsection. According to BMI charts, I could gain 25 pounds and still be in the healthy range, but I've been there and it was clearly too much for my body. I was visibly overweight.1
-
emmydoodles83 wrote: »wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.
YES. Some pics I think WOW, they look 30lbs lighter then me and other look 30lbs heavier. Made me feel more comfortable in my skin, cause no ones elses is quite the same.2 -
emmydoodles83 wrote: »wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.
Eye-opening! I always thought that I carried my weight well - that no one would be able to guess how high my weight was just by looking at me. Nope - women my height, weight and shape look just like me - some better.0 -
I think frame size matters but can't be easil quantified. I had a friend who was my height (5'0") and a healthy 130, and another who is my height and 90. I'm not healthy at either end of that range; felt awful at 130 and would sacrifice energy and muscle to be at 90. You know your body better than the numbers do.0
-
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.
With this site though I do wonder if people are being honest about their weight and measurements.
I've looked at my goal weight on women of my height and most of the women looked the same. But I'm trying to get fairly lean so I imagine at such a low number most women would look the same.
Out of curiosity I looked up my current weight which is about 10 lbs above the normal BMI range for my height and the women looked more varied. Some looked way smaller than the average woman which I'm assuming they have more muscle mass and some looked way larger - perhaps less muscle mass?0 -
Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it.
I've always wondered what is an accurate measure of frame size. Is there one?
I always said/thought I had a medium/large frame, but as I lose more weight I'm not sure. My frame seems "smaller" (probably because there's less weight on it) and it's been so long since I was actually in shape I can't really recall what I looked like then.
I think there's no sure single simple determinant, but skeletal structure is certainly one thing that matters in general.
Most of the simple tests fail for me: I'm only 5'5", but feet are 9-10; shoulders usually require L tops if there are sleeves; hands are big (ring finger is size 10 when I'm thin & most women's rings stop at 8 or 9; men's gloves are usually necessary); head is big (men's hat size about 7.5, a lot of women's "one size fits all" just sit atop my head). So, the common rules of thumb usually peg me as at least medium frame if not large.
Nope. I have the hips of a 14-year-old boy, and didn't have much of a chest, even while fat and even before the mastectomies. I still have adequate (possibly excess) body fat at BMI 20 (120 pounds) despite not being muscle-less.
I suspect pelvic width and breast size are the important variables, for women . . . but both of those are hard to evaluate while still obese.0 -
An x-ray, I expect.Frame size can matter but the wrist and elbow measurements aren't accurate measures of it.
I've always wondered what is an accurate measure of frame size. Is there one?
I always said/thought I had a medium/large frame, but as I lose more weight I'm not sure. My frame seems "smaller" (probably because there's less weight on it) and it's been so long since I was actually in shape I can't really recall what I looked like then.
You need to have a rough idea of the width of your shoulders and hips without flesh, really. I agree that wrists and elbows can't be very accurate. I have tiny hands, so tiny they freak ME out when I look at them, but I don't think they're in proportion to the rest of my body. Unsurprisingly, the wrist and elbow calculations differ, and say I have a small frame or a broad one, respectively.
1 -
I don't think frame size matters much and cannot really be categorized. I always thought I had very wide hips. Ok, they are somewhat widish, but my shoulders are wider and most of my wide hips was due to padding and genetics to attack the padding to this bodypart. While having wide hips I actually have the tinyest wrists. I can grab around with thumb and middle finger, and nearly reach the first joint of the middle finger, and my fingers are not very long. On the other hand my knee disks are big.0
-
Huskeryogi wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.
I'll represent the other side of the spectrum: I'm 5'10" and the max on the BMI chart is 178. The lowest I ever got was 167, and did not like how my upper body looked. The lowest I ever want to be again is 175. At 167, I was in a pant size 10, and still needed jackets in a 12, but any sleeveless tops could be a 4 or 6. Frame matters.
I also trust waist hip ratio for health more that BMI, but that requires accurate measurements and isn't as simple as a weigh related measure like BMI.
Another tall lady at 5'11.5 with a small frame (everything tiny but my hips), and I agree with @Huskeryogi . I'm currently 140, size 4, sometimes 6, but I still have biceps, quads and strong calves. Except I don't like it, being that low. I don't look drastically different from 146 which what I weighed before my recent appendectomy, but I don't feel like this is the weight for me. Some might even say I should lose a bit more weight as still have a bit of belly fat but I know that's not for me at all. So it's really about where you feel fittest/happiest within the range, irrespective of frame size.1 -
glassofroses wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »JessicaMcB wrote: »Yes frame size absolutely matters. Unlike most tall-ish women (many seem to identify as large framed) I am small framed at 5'10". Because of that I am on the lower end of BMI at 130 whereas other women my height have told me they feel like they'd "look like they were dying" at the same weight because frame size.
I'll represent the other side of the spectrum: I'm 5'10" and the max on the BMI chart is 178. The lowest I ever got was 167, and did not like how my upper body looked. The lowest I ever want to be again is 175. At 167, I was in a pant size 10, and still needed jackets in a 12, but any sleeveless tops could be a 4 or 6. Frame matters.
I also trust waist hip ratio for health more that BMI, but that requires accurate measurements and isn't as simple as a weigh related measure like BMI.
Another tall lady at 5'11.5 with a small frame (everything tiny but my hips), and I agree with @Huskeryogi . I'm currently 140, size 4, sometimes 6, but I still have biceps, quads and strong calves. Except I don't like it, being that low. I don't look drastically different from 146 which what I weighed before my recent appendectomy, but I don't feel like this is the weight for me. Some might even say I should lose a bit more weight as still have a bit of belly fat but I know that's not for me at all. So it's really about where you feel fittest/happiest within the range, irrespective of frame size.
Opposit here. I'm 5'10'' and pear shaped. I've been very skinny before with eating disorder and i was at my mid BMI range at 153lbs (lightest I've ever been) and size 10 pants and probably size 8 tops. My doctor told me to gain weight or my fertility could have been affected. So I'll assume I have a large frame.0 -
I've always found it very confusing. I have enormous hips (even at my lowest weight), relatively broad shoulders, can only wear men's hats because I have a big head, and am pretty tall at 5'8". BUT I have tiny ankles, wrists, hands, feet, etc. Kind of thin arms and legs for the size of my torso. I've always had people call me small framed even when I was 5'8" and 250+ lb...but with the broadness of my body even at 165 lb, and my big head...I have no idea...
0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »I think it matters. Also, how you carry your fat. All of mine goes straight to my midsection. According to BMI charts, I could gain 25 pounds and still be in the healthy range, but I've been there and it was clearly too much for my body. I was visibly overweight.
Same here.
My BMI is 20. My husband is 2 cm taller and weighs 66 lbs more. He does have some weight to lose but maybe 10-20 lbs; his bone structure and muscle mass are significantly greater than mine so while I'm fine at the lower end of the normal BMI range, he'd have to lose muscle mass to get down into it.
I've always assumed I had a small frame because my wrists and ankles are tiny. My trouble spot is my stomach; arms and legs are long and skinny. I do have proportionately wide hips though, fwiw.1 -
I have a large frame http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp and the only time I've had a BMI as low as 24 was after 6 weeks of undereating and overexercising during boot camp. (When I first arrived there, I had to get boots and hats from the men's side of the uniforms room because there weren't any big enough in women's. At 5'6", I'm not especially tall. I've always had a hard time buying bracelets. I wear men's shoes as often as I can get away with it.)
My goal is to get back into my skinny jeans from when I was a full time yoga teacher, which will have me at a Low Overweight BMI, and I'm ok with that.1 -
darn I'm too lazy to get up and measure my wrist and elbow breadth1
-
When I use the body frame calculators I come up with small frame due to skinny wrists, I also have tiny hands and very slim feet and ankles though feet are average size for a woman my height. But I have an athletic build, shoulders, waist and hips are all of a muchness, thank goodness for the boobs or I'd be curve-less! My chest measures 33 inches currently and I may get down to 32 ( under boob ) when I lose the last 7lbs to a BMI of 22.5, so not particularly tiny. Not there yet but not sure I'd want to go lower as my face is already very slim now, at 45 I don't want to age myself prematurely!0
-
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »wanna see a neat site, go to mybodygallery.com put in your height, weight, age range and body shape and it will show you pics of people with the same stats, you'll be amazed at how different everyone looks even with the same stats.
With this site though I do wonder if people are being honest about their weight and measurements.
If I remember rightly the same photo often comes up for several different heights/weights so I'm not sure how accurate their filtering is...
0 -
Yes I think it matters. I'm between 5'7" and 5'8" with a larger frame. My doctor gave me a healthy weight range of 145-165lbs which puts me at the highest end of BMI, or even slightly above by a few lbs at the heaviest end. I wouldn't be healthy at 125-130lb but someone else my height might be.
0 -
I'm 5'4" but I have a large frame. Even at my tiniest, I'm broad across the shoulders and hips. My doctor said that I was best around the upper end of the healthy weight range for my height, which is why my goal is at 145lb right now. For some people my height, that would be too heavy.0
-
Of course it matters, that's one of the reasons why there's a range for BMI.
I'm 5'1" and though I have tiny wrists, hands, and feet, my shoulders, elbow breadth, and knee joints are all enormous. I'm going to say that I'm medium framed.
I'm shooting for 110. I got down close to 115 and I looked very thin up top, but that didn't bother me. I still have large breasts, but MAN... those knobby elbows!!!!1 -
It does matter because that refers to the thickness of your bones. Skeletons are heavy. Then there's how much muscle your body normally carries. Some people are very strong but their muscles are small; some are genetically thicker muscled. That's heavy too. So you have to take that into account when determining how much a healthy body fat percentage will make you weigh.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions