Does body frame size matter?
Replies
-
GlorianasTears wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I'd say frame size can probably tell you where to aim for within the healthy weight range. I'm 5'3". According to BMI (and I mean to sit down with a registered dietician at some point to double-check all of this), my healthy range is 108-140 lbs. I can tell you that I do not have a small frame and that 108 would probably not be doable for me and I'd likely look underweight, even if I technically wasn't. I'd also likely be miserable and have a hard time staying at that level. I'm shooting for 130 at the moment, subject to change if expert advice gives me something different.
Beyond that? Not really a concern.
At this stage, where I've still got another 20 lbs or so to go before I hit the top of my healthy range? Minor concern in the sense of, "Am I sure about where I should be transitioning to maintenance?" but still not really keeping me up nights.
Thats what bothered me I was told that I would be underweight if I I weighed less than 130 but then again it's probably true lol Imy not near my goal weight anyways
This is one of the reasons that just having some arbitrary number as a goal is really not that productive. You have no idea what you're going to look like at a given weight. My average maintenance is around 180 Lbs...when I started out I figured I'd like to be maybe 160...at 180 now I realize that I would look quite emaciated and sick at 160 even though it's pretty much in the middle of the BMI range for me.
The number on the scale is just that...it's a number...there are many other things that are so much more important and actually valid.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I'd say frame size can probably tell you where to aim for within the healthy weight range. I'm 5'3". According to BMI (and I mean to sit down with a registered dietician at some point to double-check all of this), my healthy range is 108-140 lbs. I can tell you that I do not have a small frame and that 108 would probably not be doable for me and I'd likely look underweight, even if I technically wasn't. I'd also likely be miserable and have a hard time staying at that level. I'm shooting for 130 at the moment, subject to change if expert advice gives me something different.
Beyond that? Not really a concern.
At this stage, where I've still got another 20 lbs or so to go before I hit the top of my healthy range? Minor concern in the sense of, "Am I sure about where I should be transitioning to maintenance?" but still not really keeping me up nights.
Thats what bothered me I was told that I would be underweight if I I weighed less than 130 but then again it's probably true lol Imy not near my goal weight anyways
This is one of the reasons that just having some arbitrary number as a goal is really not that productive. You have no idea what you're going to look like at a given weight. My average maintenance is around 180 Lbs...when I started out I figured I'd like to be maybe 160...at 180 now I realize that I would look quite emaciated and sick at 160 even though it's pretty much in the middle of the BMI range for me.
The number on the scale is just that...it's a number...there are many other things that are so much more important and actually valid.
Wow so are you saying that as I lose more weight I will find out what personally fits me along the way . Well I'm excited to see what works out for me then ❤ thanks for your wisdom0 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I'd say frame size can probably tell you where to aim for within the healthy weight range. I'm 5'3". According to BMI (and I mean to sit down with a registered dietician at some point to double-check all of this), my healthy range is 108-140 lbs. I can tell you that I do not have a small frame and that 108 would probably not be doable for me and I'd likely look underweight, even if I technically wasn't. I'd also likely be miserable and have a hard time staying at that level. I'm shooting for 130 at the moment, subject to change if expert advice gives me something different.
Beyond that? Not really a concern.
At this stage, where I've still got another 20 lbs or so to go before I hit the top of my healthy range? Minor concern in the sense of, "Am I sure about where I should be transitioning to maintenance?" but still not really keeping me up nights.
Thats what bothered me I was told that I would be underweight if I I weighed less than 130 but then again it's probably true lol Imy not near my goal weight anyways
This is one of the reasons that just having some arbitrary number as a goal is really not that productive. You have no idea what you're going to look like at a given weight. My average maintenance is around 180 Lbs...when I started out I figured I'd like to be maybe 160...at 180 now I realize that I would look quite emaciated and sick at 160 even though it's pretty much in the middle of the BMI range for me.
The number on the scale is just that...it's a number...there are many other things that are so much more important and actually valid.
Wow so are you saying that as I lose more weight I will find out what personally fits me along the way . Well I'm excited to see what works out for me then ❤ thanks for your wisdom
Yeah...it's like with any project really...you're always assessing and reassessing as you go.
You also have to consider what is going to be manageable and reasonable in maintenance. At 180 I'm lean, but not super lean...no six pack, but I also don't have any love handles and no gut..like a 2 pack up top...it's a pretty easy weight for me to maintain without being a total nutrition and fitness nazi.
I've gotten as low as 175 and that's when I see a lot more ab definition, but not totally ripped...this is more difficult for me to maintain at 43 as I have to be a lot more strict with my diet to the point where I have to avoid some fun...for me personally, I just want to be healthy lean, not super lean...I'm not going to be modeling underwear anytime soon and I like to go out and enjoy life and have fun.
I initially had the notion of 160 in my head (it wasn't really a "goal") for a couple reasons...for one, it was pretty much the middle of my BMI range...for 2, it's about the weight I was coming out of the military when I was 22/23. Looking at it now, when I was 22/23 I was lean and lanky with good definition for what muscle I had...but I didn't have a lot of muscle. I've put on a fair bit of muscle between 23 and 43 so at 160 at this point, I would just look pretty sickly and would have to reduce my muscle mass to get there...since my goal is fat loss and not muscle loss, that's a non starter...
3 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »OK so I just measured my wrist and put my height into the body frame calculator and it said I had a large frame which made me sad why do i have to have a large frame
Those calculators are not very accurate, but what's wrong with having a large frame? That has nothing to do with body fat. It's simply how tall and wide your bones are. Many fit and beautiful women have large frames.
But it means my bones make me weigh more
So what? I weigh the same as one of my closest friends but my body fat percentage is lower and my pant size is smaller. There are better measurements of fitness and health than weight.
I’m a larger framed pear shape woman. Battling that wouldn’t serve me at all. Instead today I focus on being fit and staying within a healthy weight for my body. About 140lb is as low as I can go staying healthy but I feel and look best at 150-155lb
1 -
I just keep my frame size in mind just so if I don't get down to the recommended 160 pounds for my height it may partially just be due to my frame.
I'm 5'5 or so but I have 53" around shoulders measurement and have bigger than normal hands an wrists.
Even back when I wrestled in college I wore an XL shirt when wrestling a very dehydrated 157. I would walk around at 165-170 pounds at around 10-12% bf.1 -
I wouldn't put much stock in "frame size" via wrist measurement, especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
My wrists, hands, even feet changed significantly from my starting heaviest to lowest weight.
When I look up frame size for my height, the range between small and large is only 1/4'', which is not much.2 -
not_a_runner wrote: »I wouldn't put much stock in "frame size" via wrist measurement, especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
My wrists, hands, even feet changed significantly from my starting heaviest to lowest weight.
When I look up frame size for my height, the range between small and large is only 1/4'', which is not much.
Frame size is harder to judge the more overweight you are. Pretty hard to tell if you are more than 60-70 pounds overweight or more. Out of curiosity I had a dexa done and it showed I have 145 pounds of lean mass according to most places I looked 145 is supposed to be my total weight. So I'm assuming I larger framed.0 -
I think it can matter. I'm 5'6" and my ideal weight range is 118-155. The lowest I've gotten post kids is 136, and I had people expressing concern that I looked too thin and unhealthy. It was also impossible to maintain. I look and feel better at about 150 and I can maintain it without feeling deprived all the time. If I tried to go down to 118 I would end up in the hospital. Or prison.
7 -
Lol. Hilariously I'm on the other end. I'm 5'8" with 5.7" wrists so I'm definitely small framed. I've been so focused on just getting to a healthy bmi for my height (160lbs) that when I realized I was small framed and might actually want to aim for 20-30lbs lighter I nearly cried. So for now I'm pretending I never found out and I'm sticking with my original goal and I'll reassess what I actually look like when I get there
4 -
I honestly have no idea of what frame size I have because it's become apparent that I have decent musculature on top of it. No, not down to heavy lifting or anything like that, just genetic peasant stock.
The measurements I get for frame size reference are all over the map anyway.
At this point? My goal weight will be a "I'll know it when I see it". I'm fine enough where I am now from a health stand point, though I'd like to lean out my thighs some more. I have big quad muscles and the tiniest bit of fat on them just exaggerates those suckers. I hate it.
Anyway, all of this rambling was to make a point. I've noticed this difference in musculature in observing the bodies of other women. It's not just mass from bones that adds to our weight, we're all gifted with differing amounts of muscle tissue genetically, it seems.5 -
I actually have small wrists but I'm definitely not small framed. I have wide hips, a large rib cage, wide shoulders and a big head. I look best at the mid to upper BMI range. I currently weigh 160lbs and like how I look.2
-
Just find a place where you're happy with your body and can maintain comfortably. People have different bodies, and a number is just a number. Strangely, I am consistently told that I (1) look taller than I am, and (2) look lighter than I am. I have no idea how that combo works, but I'm guessing I'll look pretty excellent when I get to the top of normal BMI and I'll be fine with stopping there. More food for me!1
-
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »I actually have small wrists but I'm definitely not small framed. I have wide hips, a large rib cage, wide shoulders and a big head. I look best at the mid to upper BMI range. I currently weigh 160lbs and like how I look.
If a big melon counts I'm definitely large framed....lol1 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »
But it means my bones make me weigh more
Not in any way significant enough to really matter. Your skeleton is not pounds and pounds heavier than someone of the same height and weight who those silly tests classify as "medium framed" or "small framed". Plus far better to have healthy, dense, bones than osteopenic ones!
I am "medium framed" at best (i.e., if not falling into their "small" category) according to all the silly ways it is calculated. I still will never look good at the lower end of the weight range for a "healthy" BMI at my height (I look sickly and skeletal at it) or ever wear smaller than a size 10 Misses jeans even when extremely fit and at 21% BF (BTDT).1 -
The wrist test is completely worthless, but frame size DOES matter, because your 'ideal' weight will be higher if your frame is larger (and as such weighs more).2
-
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »I actually have small wrists but I'm definitely not small framed. I have wide hips, a large rib cage, wide shoulders and a big head. I look best at the mid to upper BMI range. I currently weigh 160lbs and like how I look.
Hello fellow skeletal mutant! I have small wrists, huge shoulders, a big head, enormous knees and elbows, a deep pelvis that's narrow, and small ribs.
I'm still not sure where on the BMI scale I'll look my best. I suspect it's somewhere mid-bottom range.0 -
I don't understand why it matters. I'm 5'2 with a small frame and need to be at the lower end of a healthy BMI to look slim. I look podgy at 110 lbs, whilst others my height would look super slim.0
-
not_a_runner wrote: »I wouldn't put much stock in "frame size" via wrist measurement, especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.
My wrists, hands, even feet changed significantly from my starting heaviest to lowest weight.
When I look up frame size for my height, the range between small and large is only 1/4'', which is not much.
Thats what I was thinking wouldn't my wrist get smaller as I lose more weight!0 -
duskyjewel wrote: »I think it can matter. I'm 5'6" and my ideal weight range is 118-155. The lowest I've gotten post kids is 136, and I had people expressing concern that I looked too thin and unhealthy. It was also impossible to maintain. I look and feel better at about 150 and I can maintain it without feeling deprived all the time. If I tried to go down to 118 I would end up in the hospital. Or prison.
Lol but I hope that a weight I like is easy for me to maintain cause night don't want to lose the weight and gain it all back again0 -
zharptichka wrote: »Lol. Hilariously I'm on the other end. I'm 5'8" with 5.7" wrists so I'm definitely small framed. I've been so focused on just getting to a healthy bmi for my height (160lbs) that when I realized I was small framed and might actually want to aim for 20-30lbs lighter I nearly cried. So for now I'm pretending I never found out and I'm sticking with my original goal and I'll reassess what I actually look like when I get there
See this is similar to my situation it's like they want to me rethink what my goal weight should be but I'm not gonna change it lol when I finally reached it i will decide if I want to change it or not.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I honestly have no idea of what frame size I have because it's become apparent that I have decent musculature on top of it. No, not down to heavy lifting or anything like that, just genetic peasant stock.
The measurements I get for frame size reference are all over the map anyway.
At this point? My goal weight will be a "I'll know it when I see it". I'm fine enough where I am now from a health stand point, though I'd like to lean out my thighs some more. I have big quad muscles and the tiniest bit of fat on them just exaggerates those suckers. I hate it.
Anyway, all of this rambling was to make a point. I've noticed this difference in musculature in observing the bodies of other women. It's not just mass from bones that adds to our weight, we're all gifted with differing amounts of muscle tissue genetically, it seems.
Don't they have a way where we can weigh our bones and muscles and stuff like that cause maybe I should do that. And if that's you in your photo your body looks awesome!0 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I honestly have no idea of what frame size I have because it's become apparent that I have decent musculature on top of it. No, not down to heavy lifting or anything like that, just genetic peasant stock.
The measurements I get for frame size reference are all over the map anyway.
At this point? My goal weight will be a "I'll know it when I see it". I'm fine enough where I am now from a health stand point, though I'd like to lean out my thighs some more. I have big quad muscles and the tiniest bit of fat on them just exaggerates those suckers. I hate it.
Anyway, all of this rambling was to make a point. I've noticed this difference in musculature in observing the bodies of other women. It's not just mass from bones that adds to our weight, we're all gifted with differing amounts of muscle tissue genetically, it seems.
Don't they have a way where we can weigh our bones and muscles and stuff like that cause maybe I should do that. And if that's you in your photo your body looks awesome!
A full DEXA scan can tell you how much of your weight is bone, water, fat, and muscle
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