Bone structure and body measurements

digidoomed

I was talking to a friend today and we started discussing anatomy and what not and started wondering what role your body's bone structure plays in weight loss. For example, let's say you've been losing weight and you get to a certain measurement for your hips, but you can start to feel the bone? Is that the smallest that part of your body can get? I'm not making an argument for "big-boned" people, but is it possible your bone structure can control how small you can be in a certain area?

VUA21

To a degree, yes. But, if you take an x-ray of person who is obese and another one after they lose a substantial amount of weight, thier overall bone structure narrows. (Saw that one on my x-rays). Your bones don't actually get narrower or wider, but they get closer together. That's why after a significant weight loss most people also get slightly taller (usually an inch or so). Now a 20lb weight loss, won't produce much of an effect, it's usually 100+ lb changes where it's noticable.

AnvilHead

digidoomed wrote: »

I was talking to a friend today and we started discussing anatomy and what not and started wondering what role your body's bone structure plays in weight loss. For example, let's say you've been losing weight and you get to a certain measurement for your hips, but you can start to feel the bone? Is that the smallest that part of your body can get? I'm not making an argument for "big-boned" people, but is it possible your bone structure can control how small you can be in a certain area?

Genetics absolutely is relevant to your overall body proportions. You can certainly influence it to some degree through diet and training, but you can't be what you're not.

HoneyBadger302

AnvilHead wrote: »

Genetics absolutely is relevant to your overall body proportions. You can certainly influence it to some degree through diet and training, but you can't be what you're not.

Very much this.

You can train to put on more or less muscle in certain areas, but you can't control where you do (or don't) put on/lose fat, and you can't alter your basic structure. Line up a bunch of anorexic/starving people and you will see a variety of basic body shapes. Obviously they aren't all going to be the same measurements.

AnnPT77

Bone structure doesn't play a role in the weight loss process that I know of, but it certainly plays a role in what our "best weight" is. (I know best weight includes subjective factors, but genetic aspects of structure are a constraint on what's possible.)

At a healthy weight, my hips are 34-35". I know women my height (5'5") who would be unable to get their hips below 36" or more even at a skeletally low weight. They have a more "womanly" pelvic width, whereas I'm built more like a 14 year old boy. That will cause differences in what our "best" body weight will be. The difference isn't mostly the weight of the bones themselves; it's the geometrically larger amount of skin, muscle, etc., that it takes to envelop those wider-spaced bones.

Women's bust size also makes a difference. Some of us are small, even at high body fat. Some of us are big, even at low body fat.

In men, some have very broad shoulders. Some have very narrow hips. Some are tall and very narrow for their height. Some are very barrel-chested (big rib cage). All of these kinds of things make a difference in what their "best" weight will be.

Part of the problem is that it's hard to see some of the relevant characteristics clearly in someone who's overweight: When I was obese, people could think my pelvic bones were wider. They aren't (and I knew it). Those calculators that use things like wrist or elbow size are misleading. Some people are more proportionate, others aren't. When I run those calculators, my big hands/wrists and chunkier elbows give a result that says I have a medium to large frame. But I don't: The really importan parts, the ones that need more skin/muscle around them, like ribs and hips, are small.

shaumom

digidoomed wrote: »

... let's say you've been losing weight and you get to a certain measurement for your hips, but you can start to feel the bone? Is that the smallest that part of your body can get? I'm not making an argument for "big-boned" people, but is it possible your bone structure can control how small you can be in a certain area?

Oh heck yeah. Which makes sense - how could we get skinnier than our bones are, right?

I have a friend who is super fit. She has, like, 3 black belts, is a karate instructor herself, super active. And she looks like a little sparkplug, because she is short, has a shorter spine so she has a short torso, and very wide bones at hips and shoulders. I am about 6 inches taller than her, and when we are both in shape, my hips are about 2-3 inches smaller than hers, because those are the bones I have (I always bemoaned the fact that I couldn't GET hips for most of my life unless I gained a lot of weight, because I don't have the bones for it).

I think the media makes it difficult sometimes to accurately judge what's possible, because they air brush their photos to such an extent it's ridiculous. One real issue is that parts of women (men, too, but this seems to be more of a problem for women) aren't simply 'slimmed down' as though they lost a little weight, but are pared down past the point that is realistic because they have bones there that would have had to be surgically removed to get a particular shape. (article on some of this sort of thing - https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/the-most-wtf-celebrity-photoshop-fails-of-all-time?utm_term=.kjE0LkZ7#.pgWWqOmJ )


However, just adding, all research done at the moment, that I've seen, shows your bones do not move when you lose weight, nor do you gain height. Posture can and often does change, however, which can lead to the head sitting a little higher, so there's the mirage of gained height.