Frame size ladies??

KnM0107

All my life I've thought I've had a big frame (was convinced if I got smaller than a US8/UK12 I'd look gaunt) until I finally cut back on my calories and all of a sudden find myself small (size US6/UK10) and looking better than ever. Ok, not I'm not tiny, I'm 5'8", but certainly now slender.

I'm now convinced the frame size excuse is exactly that: an excuse.

So you thought you had a big frame until you lost weight and found that your frame is smaller than you once thought and you decided that everyone else is the same and if they say any different then it is an excuse?

Oh my...

Iwishyouwell

Frame size does not preclude leanness. Anybody at any frame can get "small", at least from a slender/lean perspective.

There is no such thing as "big boned". All skeletons, regardless of minor variations in density, are still thin. You'll never find a fat skeleton. Bone size has nothing to do with the "meat" on those bones.

There is no such thing as someone who is "meant" to be "big". "Bigness" just comes from excess fat and/or excess muscle. And trust, the vast majority of people have nowhere near the amount of muscle mass to look big without the aid of a high body fat level.

If you want to look small, i.e. lean, than you have to ask yourself how much sacrifice are you willing to make to get a very low body fat percentage and maintain it. That's all that really matters is whether you want to do what it takes or not.

Azdak

I don't know about things like circumference measurements to determine "frame" size. To me, they seem more like folklore than science.

We often refer to "frame size", but it's probably a little more accurate to refer to "fat free mass" or FFM. That's because FFM includes everything that isn't fat--not only bones, but muscles, organs. water, etc.

There are definitely significant differences in FFM among individuals who are the same height. I have measured several women at the same height whose "ideal weight" ranged 40-45 pounds.

Determining "ideal weight" is really a process of determining FFM and then choosing a target level of body fat. Add the target body fat to FFM and you have the "goal weight" for an individual. That's really the only meaningful number. Choosing an "ideal" or "goal" weight based on things like wrist measurements,BMI, or comparing yourself to others who are the same height is not particularly productive IMO.

So, you start by getting your body fat % accurately measured. Multiply your scale weight by body fat % to determine "fat pounds" .

Subtract "fat pounds" from scale weight and that is your estimated FFM. Next, choose your desired target body fat %.

Finally, divide FFM by [1 - target body fat %] and you have your goal weight.

Example: weight 160 pounds, 35% fat. Fat pounds = 56 (160 x .35). FFM = 104 (160 - 56).
Target body fat %: 24% Goal weight: 137 (104/.76).

Like all "goal weights", this is a moving target. Any change in FFM, up or down, will affect the projected goal weight.

Personally, I think that's the only way to generate a "goal weight" that is most accurate for you.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, there are no tables for FFM that indicate what is "big", "average" , or "small" for any given height. I have a rough guide in my head, only because I have done thousands of body fat measurements over the years, but I have never seen any reference.

jwdieter

If you're fit and have a large frame, you look fit.
If you don't look fit and think it's because you have a large frame, you're wrong.

Azdak

Frame size does not preclude leanness. Anybody at any frame can get "small", at least from a slender/lean perspective.

There is no such thing as "big boned". All skeletons, regardless of minor variations in density, are still thin. You'll never find a fat skeleton. Bone size has nothing to do with the "meat" on those bones.

There is no such thing as someone who is "meant" to be "big". "Bigness" just comes from excess fat and/or excess muscle. And trust, the vast majority of people have nowhere near the amount of muscle mass to look big without the aid of a high body fat level.

If you want to look small, i.e. lean, than you have to ask yourself how much sacrifice are you willing to make to get a very low body fat percentage and maintain it. That's all that really matters is whether you want to do what it takes or not.

I suggest our differences are mostly semantic, but there ARE significant differences in "basic size" between individuals. As I wrote earlier, I prefer the term "fat free mass" to "big boned" or "large frame", but the idea is still the same: if you take 20 people who are the same height and magically strip away all the fat, you will see a number of different-sized bodies, ranging from very thin to very stocky.

What is a constant is not "frame size", but "achievable body fat %"-- and maybe that is what you are referring to. In other words, most people have to potential to reach a level of body fat that is healthy and/or reasonably attractive (not elite athlete or supermodel thin, but reasonably fit-looking). I would put that level at 22%-26% for women (higher is the goal is only low health risk) and 18%-21% for men. (Feel free to propose your own goals). But at that same level of body fat -- say 24% for an average female -- you are going to see a wide range of body types--from slim to stocky--and an equally wide range of scale weights.

If you are defining "leanness" strictly in terms of body fat percentage, then, like I said , I would mostly agree. I wasn't entirely sure of your meaning.

Iwishyouwell

I will never be small. I don't want to be either.

I am a big woman. This isn't an excuse to stay fat. I'm not fat. I'm 5'9" tall. I have a big head, big hands, big feet, wide rib cage, big hips, long arms, long legs, etc. I weigh 160lbs and am a size 8, 25% body fat and have a flat stomach. My goal is 150lbs at which point I'll probably be a size 6. I could maybe get into a 4 if I wanted to drop below 20% body fat but I don't. I really don't think it'd be possible for me to fit into a 2 or a zero, ever.

ETA: The wrist size thing doesn't work for me. I actually have small wrists and long fingers.

But see busy at that height, body fat level, and goal weight, I think many people would perceive you as "small".

Iwishyouwell

If you are defining "leanness" strictly in terms of body fat percentage, then, like I said , I would mostly agree. I wasn't entirely sure of your meaning.

Yes, I was talking strictly about leanness, or low bodyfat. Fat is visually quite deceptive, and I've met untold amounts of men and women who perceived their "big" stature to be from "big bones", or a "big frame", when the truth is that most of that heft is comprised of old, old fashioned fat.

Of course, as you mentioned above, if you stripped everyone down to their FFM all bodies would present variations in size. But I believe when most people refer to being "big", "big boned", "thick", "small", "thin", "skinny", whatever adjectives, they're almost often talking about body fat levels, inadvertently or otherwise.

Also, as a man, I'd say, in my experience, the most idealized body fat amongst men is generally in the 14-10% range.

BinaryPulsar

Ok, so a few people towards the end of this thread are missing the point.

Yes, everyone can be fit. And they can be lean to the level of their preference. Although what level of leanness they like for their own body is also going to vary.

Frame size is a real thing, and is not the wrong word for "fat free mass". This is not even about being "big boned". It's about how two people of the same height can be at a low body fat percent and have very different measurements. I have a 26 inch rib cage (where my bra goes, my actual waist is 23 inches), and other people that are an inch shorter than me have a 38 inch rib cage (and they have visible ribs). It is true that the weight does not come from the bones alone, it does come from there being more space in the frame of the body structure, so there needs to be more muscle and more fat (within the healthy range). That is why you will have two people of different weights and they both have 18% body fat. The heavier person has more mass (more muscle and more fat, not just more fat free mass), but neither of them are "fat". They are both lean. And it doesn't make sense to describe that as everyone being small. You can describe it as lean and fit. Because a lean and fit person could wear a size xxs, and another lean and fit person could wear a large. That was what the op was asking. And the answer is that not everyone will be the same clothing size. Not everyone is going to be a size 00, and not everyone is going to be a size 12. Different people are healthy, lean and fit at different measurements and different clothing sizes. And there are even more differences for women as well. A women that wears an A or B cup is going to weigh less than someone close to her size that wears a G cup. And that also will impact clothing size.

Yes, there are some people that are heavy that say they are big boned as a form of self-deception, but that is not what the OP is talking about. Should people tell her that yes, she can be a size 2. No, because that would probably not be healthy for her. And it probably wouldn't even look good on her body type or frame size.

And some people have the misconception that frame size is determined by wrist size. A person's wrist, is not their frame size. Frame size is more determined by the actual body frame itself (as in the ribs and shoulders for example).

And as far as measuring body fat, those are notoriously unscientific and inaccurate (and sometimes expensive). There are ways of determining a healthy body weight and leanness without needing to do all of that. And often you figure it out as you go. It's not needed to have an inflexible goal weight. At this point we are talking about fine tuning fitness, not about people that are overweight.

MakePeasNotWar

I will definitely never look like like a narrow fitspo model. My shoulders are broad, my pelvis is wide, and my rib cage won't really go under 32" even if my waist is in he mid 20s. That being said, when my body fat was 18% I was visibly fit and lean, even if not quite so narrow. I think you might be surprised how little you care about your clothing size when you are at your peak fitness. I was.

meshashesha2012

i honestly think frame size is generally used a cop out for overweight people to not feel so overweight.

i guess i have what would be considered a small frame ( ie i'm a good 60 pounds over weight and i have small ankles, small wrists, small pelvis, small ribcage, narrow shoulders, etc) yet i've always been more solid and weighed more than i looked even when i was at my goal size. the main reason for that is because of high lean body mass.

so at 5'5 i was sickly looking at 125 pounds and at my most fit as an athlete i was 150 and wore a size 4. my goal now is around 160-170 and a size 6. yes it's true that for some 5'5 women 160 pounds would be huge, but for me it's not and that's not because of frame size

Iwishyouwell

They are both lean. And it doesn't make sense to describe that as everyone being small.

We don't all have the same context.

I grew up in a world where people were called "small" if they were relatively slender. Regardless of a person's height, weight, clothing size, it wasn't uncommon to hear someone who wasn't fat called "small". "Oh you've gotten so small", "she's so small now", "yes, she's small", these were the kind of phrases I heard.

So when I see a person who has relatively low body fat levels, I look at them as "small". So when I see a lean woman, even with a "larger frame, whose fitting in size 4, 6, 8, I consider her "small". Obviously you don't, but keep in mind this is partly a matter of perception. I personally can't fathom only considering a woman in a size 2 "small".

I think you might be surprised how little you care about your clothing size when you are at your peak fitness. I was.

What a freeing realization.

BinaryPulsar

They are both lean. And it doesn't make sense to describe that as everyone being small.

We don't all have the same context.

I grew up in a world where people were called "small" if they were relatively slender. Regardless of a person's height, weight, clothing size, it wasn't uncommon to hear someone who wasn't fat called "small". "Oh you've gotten so small", "she's so small now", "yes, she's small", these were the kind of phrases I heard.

So when I see a person who has relatively low body fat levels, I look at them as "small". So when I see a lean woman, even with a "larger frame, whose fitting in size 4, 6, 8, I consider her "small". Obviously you don't, but keep in mind this is partly a matter of perception. I personally can't fathom only considering a woman in a size 2 "small".

Well, the op was talking in terms of clothing sizes. Myself being a person that often can't find a size that fits me, I do need to ask things like, "Do the clothes run small, or do they run big" or "Does that store have clothing that fits very small sized women". They don't sell my bra size in mall stores (I need a 26 or 28 band size, unless they purposely make them smaller and then sometimes a 30 will work because it's actually a 26 band size). To put that into context most stores don't sell smaller than a 34. In some stores I can wear a small, in other stores the xs is too big. In some stores I can wear a 2, in other stores the 00 is too big. And I have to purchase my shoes in the children's department, while my 9 year old shops in the women's department.

I don't think small means good, lean, or fit. It's just an accurate description that helps in purchasing clothing that fits and in having costumes made for dance. I don't really care how the word small gets used, though. It just sometimes helps for accuracy in trying to understand things about clothing size for example. So, I think you misunderstood my reasoning for what I was saying because you attach more meaning to the word small than I do. For me, it is about finding a good fit.

And when we understand things like small frame and large frame and do not consider one to be "better" than they other, we have people that are confident with their body type and not trying to starve or over eat or inaccurately putting people down for being different from them. Small is just one adjective. A person can be lean and fit and be medium or large framed.

Iwishyouwell

They are both lean. And it doesn't make sense to describe that as everyone being small.

We don't all have the same context.

I grew up in a world where people were called "small" if they were relatively slender. Regardless of a person's height, weight, clothing size, it wasn't uncommon to hear someone who wasn't fat called "small". "Oh you've gotten so small", "she's so small now", "yes, she's small", these were the kind of phrases I heard.

So when I see a person who has relatively low body fat levels, I look at them as "small". So when I see a lean woman, even with a "larger frame, whose fitting in size 4, 6, 8, I consider her "small". Obviously you don't, but keep in mind this is partly a matter of perception. I personally can't fathom only considering a woman in a size 2 "small".

Well, the op was talking in terms of clothing sizes. Myself being a person that often can't find a size that fits me, I do need to ask things like, "Do the clothes run small, or do they run big" or "Does that store have clothing that fits very small sized women". They don't sell my bra size in mall stores (I need a 26 or 28 band size, unless they purposely make them smaller and then sometimes a 30 will work because it's actually a 26 band size). To put that into context most stores don't sell smaller than a 34. In some stores I can wear a small, in other stores the xs is too big. In some stores I can wear a 2, in other stores the 00 is too big. And I have to purchase my shoes in the children's department, while my 9 year old shops in the women's department.

Good old vanity sizing. Yep, we men are dealing with the same (even though most don't know it). My goal weight is going to take me to the smaller ends of true, uninflated clothing sizes, and I'm seeing now that finding pants is going to prove much more difficult considering how inflated most things have gotten.

jwdieter

Good old vanity sizing. Yep, we men are dealing with the same (even though most don't know it). My goal weight is going to take me to the smaller ends of true, uninflated clothing sizes, and I'm seeing now that finding pants is going to prove much more difficult considering how inflated most things have gotten.

If you're a true 28, be happy that belts are a viable wardrobe element. Luckily inseams and necks are generally solid.

BinaryPulsar

They are both lean. And it doesn't make sense to describe that as everyone being small.

We don't all have the same context.

I grew up in a world where people were called "small" if they were relatively slender. Regardless of a person's height, weight, clothing size, it wasn't uncommon to hear someone who wasn't fat called "small". "Oh you've gotten so small", "she's so small now", "yes, she's small", these were the kind of phrases I heard.

So when I see a person who has relatively low body fat levels, I look at them as "small". So when I see a lean woman, even with a "larger frame, whose fitting in size 4, 6, 8, I consider her "small". Obviously you don't, but keep in mind this is partly a matter of perception. I personally can't fathom only considering a woman in a size 2 "small".

Well, the op was talking in terms of clothing sizes. Myself being a person that often can't find a size that fits me, I do need to ask things like, "Do the clothes run small, or do they run big" or "Does that store have clothing that fits very small sized women". They don't sell my bra size in mall stores (I need a 26 or 28 band size, unless they purposely make them smaller and then sometimes a 30 will work because it's actually a 26 band size). To put that into context most stores don't sell smaller than a 34. In some stores I can wear a small, in other stores the xs is too big. In some stores I can wear a 2, in other stores the 00 is too big. And I have to purchase my shoes in the children's department, while my 9 year old shops in the women's department.

Good old vanity sizing. Yep, we men are dealing with the same (even though most don't know it). My goal weight is going to take me to the smaller ends of true, uninflated clothing sizes, and I'm seeing now that finding pants is going to prove much more difficult considering how inflated most things have gotten.

Yeah.