So - Is There Such A Thing As Different Builds/Bone Structures?

ninerbuff

Yes.

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

GottaBurnEmAll

I'd like to gently point out that there's quite a difference between having a lot of muscle and not having much body fat.

For example, I'm someone who has a fair bit of muscle tissue built up in her calves and thighs (a good bit is genetic, a good bit was built up during puberty), and yes, while there's some fat there, my thighs will never be super slim because of that.

Even just seeing different bodies, you can see differences in musculature. Some people have more muscle tissue than others, and will just be larger. This isn't even taking into account bone density.

So, yes.

Graelwyn75

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I'd like to gently point out that there's quite a difference between having a lot of muscle and not having much body fat.

For example, I'm someone who has a fair bit of muscle tissue built up in her calves and thighs (a good bit is genetic, a good bit was built up during puberty), and yes, while there's some fat there, my thighs will never be super slim because of that.

Even just seeing different bodies, you can see differences in musculature. Some people have more muscle tissue than others, and will just be larger. This isn't even taking into account bone density.

So, yes.

Yes I understand that. I was not sure how to describe my current composition. Only know my ex trainer said that I am currently just muscle and bone and have retained muscle from when I trained very intensely with him in the past.

timtam163

Foot size varies greatly even at the same height; it follows that other bone structures do as well. I don't know how helpful the "wrist test" is for women though, and it seems to be the one most charts use.

A friend who used to be obese but is now very lean said that his bone structure is broad because he was a fat child, and his skeleton structure grew with him during puberty to support his body. I'm not sure what science says about it, but it seems to make sense.

Overall, unless you are an anomaly and/or very muscular, charts/BMI are helpful. But measuring body fat with calipers or a scan is a much more individualized approach that I think ultimately will tell you far more about your "ideal" weight than other approaches.

rickiimarieee

Yes people can be built very differently. I'm short and but have a very large torso width wise. My ribs and hips are huge. My doctor has commented that my rib cage is huge for my size but it's normal it's healthy. My waist is about 27-28 inches and that's the smallest it will go there's no fat on my ribs or anything but my hips on the other hand I had a baby so my hips widened out a lot. I have some fat on my hips, not much but my hips is probably about 36 inches. So when I put my measurements in for my BMI I know it can't be correct because I'm just big boned. I can't imagine the body mass index is completely right.

RaeBeeBaby

A few months ago I did wrist and elbow measurements to determine frame size that I found on several online sites. I know it's not rocket science but it was pretty accurate for me. I expected that I was medium-framed and the measurements supported that. Since you're measuring areas that don't have a lot of fat it likely doesn't change even with weight loss and gain.

Without measuring, this is an even more unscientific method - but also accurate for me (mine touch exactly).

Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.

cs2thecox

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.

I reckon I'm medium framed but have massive hands

I'm on the small end of what my body can comfortably take, and wear an 8-10 in UK clothes, generally a 4 in the US and my favourite jeans are actually a US 2 (THANKS AE!).
But next to the wiry little cycling and ultra-running women who I would class as small-framed, I look like an absolute heffalump.
And next to my 6ft Amazonian rowing friends I look miniature...

There's definitely a range!

AnnPT77

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

A few months ago I did wrist and elbow measurements to determine frame size that I found on several online sites. I know it's not rocket science but it was pretty accurate for me. I expected that I was medium-framed and the measurements supported that. Since you're measuring areas that don't have a lot of fat it likely doesn't change even with weight loss and gain.

Without measuring, this is an even more unscientific method - but also accurate for me (mine touch exactly).

Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.

Not universal. My fingers barely meet, despite giant hands, because I have huge wrists.

Large frame? Nope. 34" hips and no breasts trumps wrist/hand size. The important body parts are small-frame-sized. I look fine at 5'5" and 120 pounds (BMI 20).

Well, a little ape-like on account of those hands & wrists, but not bony or skinny.

ALG775

I can get my thumb and middle finger to overlap slightly, but I have a very large frame- shoulders so wide that structured shirts are a challenge. Fingers and wrists big enough that it's almost impossible to get a woman's pair of gloves to fit me, and a very big ribcage, long arms and legs. I agree with @cs2thecox - I must have massive hands!

Graelwyn75

I once did the elbow and wrist measurements and whilst my wrist came out as small boned, my elbow came out as medium. I also have quite large knee joints. I must admit, I have always loathed my build... fairly broad shoulders, calves that are naturally muscular and yes, I have a pretty broad ribcage. I always bemoaned the fact I couldn't be petite, but it is what it is. I also hate being tall, lol.

GottaBurnEmAll

Graelwyn75 wrote: »

I once did the elbow and wrist measurements and whilst my wrist came out as small boned, my elbow came out as medium. I also have quite large knee joints. I must admit, I have always loathed my build... fairly broad shoulders, calves that are naturally muscular and yes, I have a pretty broad ribcage. I always bemoaned the fact I couldn't be petite, but it is what it is. I also hate being tall, lol.

I have large elbows and knees too. The more weight I lose, the knobbier looking they get. Bonus for me? They're all mildly swollen with arthritis as well.

lil_moniQ

I once had a huge crush on my maths tutor... At some point (I was chubby), we were discussing gym habits and I started talking about bone structures and how I'm much thicker than most girls.

He says to me that everyone has the same mass of skeleton.

That day, I vowed never to agree with everything he says... Because clearly there is tall and short... And my wrist is a lot thicker than my younger sister's... She weighs at least 20-30kg less than me.

AnvilHead

Interesting study about the correlation of frame size measurements (in normal weight people) with total body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content and bone density: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/6/1012.long

The_Gruffet

Yes absolutely. I've always been heavy for my height back when I was 18 I was 13.5stone. I was I peak physical condition however my bmi stated I was overweight. As the years have passed I have put on some weigh and currently (before using mfp) tipped the scales at 16s 12lb Im not that fat. I have a dense bone structure. I'm currently tipping the scales at 16s 3lb. I look more like I'm between 14 and 15 stone. My brother is the same height as me and weighed 16st 13lb when I was similar and he looked a lot chunkier than me. This is why the bmi system isn't entirely accurate.

The_Gruffet

lil_moniQ wrote: »

I once had a huge crush on my maths tutor... At some point (I was chubby), we were discussing gym habits and I started talking about bone structures and how I'm much thicker than most girls.

He says to me that everyone has the same mass of skeleton.

That day, I vowed never to agree with everything he says... Because clearly there is tall and short... And my wrist is a lot thicker than my younger sister's... She weighs at least 20-30kg less than me.

This is generally true, we all have similar bone mass, however the density of said bone structure varies.

GottaBurnEmAll

AnvilHead wrote: »

Interesting study about the correlation of frame size measurements (in normal weight people) with total body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content and bone density: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/6/1012.long

That left me more confused than ever. I'm just a weirdo with a weird body, I think.

Machka9

RaeBeeBaby wrote: »

A few months ago I did wrist and elbow measurements to determine frame size that I found on several online sites. I know it's not rocket science but it was pretty accurate for me. I expected that I was medium-framed and the measurements supported that. Since you're measuring areas that don't have a lot of fat it likely doesn't change even with weight loss and gain.

Without measuring, this is an even more unscientific method - but also accurate for me (mine touch exactly).

Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.

I'm 5'6" with tiny, tiny wrists and ankles ... and long, long fingers. My thumb and middle finger well overlap ... like by a lot!

And yet I have fairly broad hips and shoulders.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

Graelwyn75 wrote: »

It is what my ex trainer said recently. By fair amount, I mean that I have little body fat but have retained muscle from the training I used to do(when my current profile picture was actually current), not that I have lots of prominent muscles. I suppose a few recent photographs might better illustrate what I mean by that. I don't mean I have lots of muscle. I mean that most of what I do have left now is muscle ? But your view may differ.

I don't think you look "unhealthy" in those pictures. However you might look a little more "healthy" with a few extra pounds of fat. And I think your muscles look great.

cwolfman13

Graelwyn75 wrote: »

I know the whole ectomorph/Mesomorph/Endomorph thing is a load of nonsense but I am wondering, given the BMI ranges for each height are so broad, do people really have different bone structures/builds? I am asking because I have noticed that people of the same height and weight can appear entirely different in terms of whether they appear healthy/thin/chubby etc. For example, when I am at the bottom of the weight range for my height, I become very bony and can see my ribs/hipbones, but someone else the same height and weight will look fairly healthy.

Yes...this is one of the reasons there is a range.

My wife is 5'2" - 5'3" and has a larger, athletic build with a decent amount of muscle mass. Her sweet spot is 125-130 Lbs...she pretty much looks like she's back in her college soccer playing days at that weight. 130-135 she just looks a little softer.

I've never seen her below about 125...she could probably manage 120 or so and still maintain a fit and athletic look, but she'd be super lean...but she's not petite so I'd imagine she would start looking rather ill below 120...

Mouse_Potato

I definitely think so. When I was near the top of the healthy BMI range for my height, I was clearly overweight. I look and feel my best around 20 and below.