Does body frame size matter?
Options
Replies
-
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
Weight is only one data point and not even the most important one. Body fat and muscle mass are more important in my view. As long and you are the relatively lean, fit, best version of you possible, what difference does the scale number mean?
BTW, I am also someone with large bone structure. Wide shoulders, wide hips, wide knees, etc. At, 5'9" it'll probably mean that I will never look good at a weight that some may be fine with. Like, say, 165. I will be at around 20% BF at 180. At 165, I would look emaciated. Don't make yourself crazy with the scale!
I think I'm in the same boat. I'm not down to where I want to be but am targeting 5-10 lbs above a BMI of 25 as my math tells me that will still be sub 20% BF. I may change that when I get there, but right now at 6ft, I'm aiming for 190-195.0 -
@sofchak Way to lay it out like it is!1
-
I'd love to know why my comment is flagged as abuse....?2
-
TavistockToad wrote: »I'd love to know why my comment is flagged as abuse....?
somebody must have hit the wrong icon by mistake, nothing wrong with your comment.
1 -
Thanks, @fitover40mom! I appreciate the acknowledgement!0
-
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?
It's just a number. Your health is what counts, #1.
Some people put a value on good appearance, too, but that's ideally achieved at a weight that's healthy for you.
If you feel good and look good, why does the number on the scale matter?
I personally wouldn't (because I don't care about the number per se), but you can always lie about it to other people if that makes you feel better. I'm pretty sure quite a few celebrities do.3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »I'd love to know why my comment is flagged as abuse....?suzannesimmons3 wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »I'd love to know why my comment is flagged as abuse....?
I was once flagged for telling a flouncer who announced we were all stupid and was leaving "bye"
Lol I don't know why I definitely didn't flag it also i agree it's just genetics we gotta work with what we are born with2 -
justkeeprunning91 wrote: »Also, as people have said above, don't put too much stock in those calculators. I have tiny wrists (the smallest hole on my fitbit is too big), but what really matters is other parts of your structure, especially for women. I have wide hips and a wide ribcage. That matters for my goal weight so much more than my wrists. I was mad at first that I would never be "tiny" because of my ribs and hips, but now I realize it gives me a nice hourglass figure that some women would kill for. It's all perspective.
Thanks for commenting I gotta remember to stay positive! !!0 -
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?
It's just a number. Your health is what counts, #1.
Some people put a value on good appearance, too, but that's ideally achieved at a weight that's healthy for you.
If you feel good and look good, why does the number on the scale matter?
I personally wouldn't (because I don't care about the number per se), but you can always lie about it to other people if that makes you feel better. I'm pretty sure quite a few celebrities do.
@Ann I had responded to your earlier comment but apparently it didn't save anyways thanks a bunch for your advice plus you are right no one knows my actual weight anyways I just think I was a little bothered because people always tell me I don't look like I weigh as much as i do ... whatever that is supposed to mean lolz0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions