Proof there's no such thing as big bones
Replies
-
I kinda just read this as a "fighting excuses for being overweight" post. And maybe not entirely fair to OP to compare the bones of people to dinosaurs or the bones of petite women to large men (unless you're saying these are comparable, then I think we need a different post
). 0 -
Well... I have an extra set of ribs so I guess I technically have more bones than most people but I don't use that as an excuse!
Unfortunately all it means for me is that my ribs stick out whenever I wanted to be back anywhere in the low to mid 120s. I never liked it so I never wanted to be that light, but I'm learning to live with it.0 -
Some how I suspect that's not really an X-ray. It's supposed to be Keith Martin, the fattest man, but no.
Not sure what shoes have to do with anything but am curious.
quite a lot
I have wide shoulders and a wide rib cage, yet I'm short, so my bone structure is relatively wide for my height. Also, I have short wide feet, i.e. they're size 3 yet too wide to fit into size 3 shoes so I can only buy kids shoes that come with width fittings (which makes shoe shopping a total nightmare and unlike most women I only own 2 pairs of shoes, one formal and one pair of trainers for everyday use, the trainers were made for little boys and the formal shoes for little girls in the widest width fitting the shoe company made them in... I'd love to own more shoes but hardly any fit me.)
this is from bone structure and not from fat. I'm at a healthy body fat percentage and my feet are so lean they're vascular and you can see the bones and tendons on my feet. They're just really wide. Like my shoulders and rib cage. I don't have much fat on my upper body, so it's definitely shoulders and rib cage, not fat. I also have wide hands. I can't get household gloves that fit me because my hands are too wide, and the ones that fit in width the finger size is way too long. Again, my hands are not fat, I just have short, wide, bone structure all over.
Also a friend on my friends list is really small framed (underweight by BMI at a healthy body fat percentage, and she lifts heavy and eats loads) and the same height as me... she has very narrow hands and feet.
There is such a thing as frame size and it varies a lot from person to person, but there is a limit, as in frame size can only be so big, and after that additional weight is either fat or muscle. The largest framed women may have a BMI in the "overweight" range while their body fat percentage is healthy if they're fit and athletic, but it's extremely rare for a woman to have an obese BMI while still being in the healthy body fat percentage range... the only exceptions would be women who have deliberately gained a lot of muscle through weight training - and they'd be rare because most women can't gain this much lean mass, even if they have a large frame. More men fall into these categories due to men being able to gain more muscle than women, and the fact that more men are into strength training. But as a general rule even for men if you're not a strength athlete then a BMI in the obese range means you have too much body fat.... and even with men and women who have added lean mass through strength training... the additional weight does not increase their actual frame size, just the size and density of their muscles (and that's much harder for women to do than men, so that limits how much weight women can gain)..... there's still a limit to frame size and the limit does not take people very far beyond the healthy BMI range.
Note: the reason why BMI is so inadequate is much more to do with the fact that small to medium framed people can and frequently do still fall within the healthy BMI range while they're carrying too much body fat. If you're female and obese according to BMI then that nearly always means you're carrying too much fat. And the majority of women in the overweight range are carrying too much fat (large framed strength athletes may have a healthy body fat percentage in this range). Men can get somewhat heavier for their height than women but non-athletic men will not fall far outside the healthy BMI range without the cause being too much fat. ..........However a healthy BMI does not mean you have a healthy body fat percentage. Depending on your frame size, you may need to be in the middle or low end of BMI before you hit a healthy body fat percentage... and BMI does not tell you where in the range you need to be, so it's much better to go by body fat percentage than BMI for this information.0 -
Well... I have an extra set of ribs so I guess I technically have more bones than most people but I don't use that as an excuse!
Unfortunately all it means for me is that my ribs stick out whenever I wanted to be back anywhere in the low to mid 120s. I never liked it so I never wanted to be that light, but I'm learning to live with it.
My ribs stick out at 25% body fat (i.e. quite high up within the healthy range) because I have a big rib cage. I don't think ribs sticking out looks so bad though. It's like thigh gaps, some people get them in the healthy range, others don't. Bone structure varies more than people realise. Although bone structure isn't responsible for someone having an obese BMI.0 -
There is such a thing as big bones!
...it just depends on which invertebrate we are discussing.
*smirk*0 -
Well... I have an extra set of ribs so I guess I technically have more bones than most people but I don't use that as an excuse!
Unfortunately all it means for me is that my ribs stick out whenever I wanted to be back anywhere in the low to mid 120s. I never liked it so I never wanted to be that light, but I'm learning to live with it.
My ribs stick out at 25% body fat (i.e. quite high up within the healthy range) because I have a big rib cage. I don't think ribs sticking out looks so bad though. It's like thigh gaps, some people get them in the healthy range, others don't. Bone structure varies more than people realise. Although bone structure isn't responsible for someone having an obese BMI.
Haha coincidentally I also have a thigh gap- but I'm around 24-27% body fat. I seem to just have an unusually WIDE frame, which sometimes makes me unhappy with pictures that are taken of me because I look bigger than I am unless I'm turned sideways in the pic and then I look skinny.
Totally agree it's not responsible for having an obese BMI- or more importantly, a high BF%.0 -
Big bones in the sense of a wide frame do exist.
I have got a wide frame. When I was 12 years old, 5'6 and 103 lbs, my waist circumference was 66 cm or 26 inches. I'm now 5'8 and at 68 cm or 26.7 inches and know that I will never be able to go below that number, even though my belly is completely flat.
I was very weight-conscious during puberty and I can remember one day when I wanted to buy jeans, but only size 38 (USA size 8) fit me at 110 lbs whereas my overweight friend could easily slide into size 6 pants. I actually cried when I returned home and my self-image was damaged. Nowadays I don't give a *kitten* about clothing sizes, it has nothing to do with how slim you are or look. And everything is vanity sized anyway.0 -
Lack of research, knowledge, and random images used to back up your pet theories do not make it fact, no matter how hard you try.0
-
People trying to be kind have called me Big Boned my whole life. This X-ray of a 900 pound man shows what a load of crap that was.
Bless their hearts for trying to be nice.
Erm if that's a real X-ray I will dine on hat tonight
The femurs are shorter than the humerus, the iliac crests look too narrow compared to the clavicles and scapular and the spinal column looks too long in comparison to every thing else - the rib cage is too far from the pelvis0 -
There really is a such thing as big-boned, though I agree that it is almost always used as an excuse to explain being overweight. You can see a difference when you put two skeletons of the same height side-by-side, but I imagine that a lot of people have not had the opportunity to see this. There are women who are still alive and in a size two, and there are women who are dead and nothing but a skeleton remaining who could not wear a size two. You see it mostly in the pelvis, rib cage, wrists, and ankles. Obviously foot size would be different, but that wouldn't be indicative of whether or not you are "big-boned".
Exactly.
Yup. I am 5'5" and even when I only weighed 118 lbs, I was never smaller than a size 8, and that was only in one or two outfits, the rest of them I wore a size 10.
Ok, sorry. But even the biggest boned woman at 5'5" would be well under a size 10 at 15% to 20% bodyfat.
At some point, the big boned explanation ceases to hold weight.
Unless she was 118 pounds in the 80's. You do know that clothing sizes have changed?0 -
There really is a such thing as big-boned, though I agree that it is almost always used as an excuse to explain being overweight. You can see a difference when you put two skeletons of the same height side-by-side, but I imagine that a lot of people have not had the opportunity to see this. There are women who are still alive and in a size two, and there are women who are dead and nothing but a skeleton remaining who could not wear a size two. You see it mostly in the pelvis, rib cage, wrists, and ankles. Obviously foot size would be different, but that wouldn't be indicative of whether or not you are "big-boned".
Exactly.
Yup. I am 5'5" and even when I only weighed 118 lbs, I was never smaller than a size 8, and that was only in one or two outfits, the rest of them I wore a size 10.
Ok, sorry. But even the biggest boned woman at 5'5" would be well under a size 10 at 15% to 20% bodyfat.
At some point, the big boned explanation ceases to hold weight.
How many years ago are we talking about thought? A size 10 was a lot smaller 30 years ago than it is now. And she also never said what body fat percentage she was.
I have no idea what my body fat was, but when I was 118 lbs, I was running cross country in track plus did strength training, so I can't imagine it was very high. Every bone I had stuck out. So whatever. I know that some people will never be convinced that some of us have wider hips and shoulders than others.
I was 5' 9" with visible bones in my spine and I was a comfortable size 8 in 1988. Women idealized size 6 back then. I could just squeeze into a 6.0 -
I kinda just read this as a "fighting excuses for being overweight" post. And maybe not entirely fair to OP to compare the bones of people to dinosaurs or the bones of petite women to large men (unless you're saying these are comparable, then I think we need a different post ).
And everybody is saying that big boned is a euphemism for being overweight, like curvy and is BS.
But don't try to tell me that I need to be a size 4, because my hips are too big for that.0 -
Well... I have an extra set of ribs so I guess I technically have more bones than most people but I don't use that as an excuse!
Unfortunately all it means for me is that my ribs stick out whenever I wanted to be back anywhere in the low to mid 120s. I never liked it so I never wanted to be that light, but I'm learning to live with it.
My ribs stick out at 25% body fat (i.e. quite high up within the healthy range) because I have a big rib cage. I don't think ribs sticking out looks so bad though. It's like thigh gaps, some people get them in the healthy range, others don't. Bone structure varies more than people realise. Although bone structure isn't responsible for someone having an obese BMI.
Haha coincidentally I also have a thigh gap- but I'm around 24-27% body fat. I seem to just have an unusually WIDE frame, which sometimes makes me unhappy with pictures that are taken of me because I look bigger than I am unless I'm turned sideways in the pic and then I look skinny.
Totally agree it's not responsible for having an obese BMI- or more importantly, a high BF%.
having a wider pelvis would make it more likely that you'd have a thigh gap at a healthy body fat percentage, because if you have a wider pelvis, the joint between the pelvis and femur are further apart, i.e. there's more space between your leg bones, so easier to get a thigh gap. I kind of have half a thigh gap, but my pelvis is quite narrow compared to my shoulders and rib cage. My body's weird like that.
also to clarify re obese BMI - while frame size is not responsible, muscle mass can be (but that comes from bigger muscles not a larger frame) and that almost always only applies to men as women are limited in how much actual muscle mass they can add.0 -
Well... I have an extra set of ribs so I guess I technically have more bones than most people but I don't use that as an excuse!
Unfortunately all it means for me is that my ribs stick out whenever I wanted to be back anywhere in the low to mid 120s. I never liked it so I never wanted to be that light, but I'm learning to live with it.
My ribs stick out at 25% body fat (i.e. quite high up within the healthy range) because I have a big rib cage. I don't think ribs sticking out looks so bad though. It's like thigh gaps, some people get them in the healthy range, others don't. Bone structure varies more than people realise. Although bone structure isn't responsible for someone having an obese BMI.
Haha coincidentally I also have a thigh gap- but I'm around 24-27% body fat. I seem to just have an unusually WIDE frame, which sometimes makes me unhappy with pictures that are taken of me because I look bigger than I am unless I'm turned sideways in the pic and then I look skinny.
Totally agree it's not responsible for having an obese BMI- or more importantly, a high BF%.
having a wider pelvis would make it more likely that you'd have a thigh gap at a healthy body fat percentage, because if you have a wider pelvis, the joint between the pelvis and femur are further apart, i.e. there's more space between your leg bones, so easier to get a thigh gap. I kind of have half a thigh gap, but my pelvis is quite narrow compared to my shoulders and rib cage. My body's weird like that.
also to clarify re obese BMI - while frame size is not responsible, muscle mass can be (but that comes from bigger muscles not a larger frame) and that almost always only applies to men as women are limited in how much actual muscle mass they can add.
I'm actually just barely on the high end of normal and my body fat is 25.5% If I gained 3-5 pounds of muscle, which I could easily do (and plan to) I'll be overweight (and have less than 25% body fat). I couldn't make it to obese, but there are few men who could either.0 -
People trying to be kind have called me Big Boned my whole life. This X-ray of a 900 pound man shows what a load of crap that was.
Bless their hearts for trying to be nice.
Pfft.
This man in the photo is fluffy, not big boned.
I think Gabriel would put this guy well beyond fluffy. More like "daa-amn!", if I recall his categories correctly.0 -
Yeah uhm I WISH there was no such thing. Girls 40lbs heavier than me can still have legs/arms that look more elegant than mine, only because my wrists and ankles are just super wide. It just seems to take the natural curve away and turn my limbs into shapeless logs
But you're definitely right in the sense that 'big bones' would NEVER cause obesity. That's just ridiculous.0 -
Then why doesn't every 5'6" 130 lb woman wear the same size shoes? Yes, most of the "big bones" comments are excuses but different people do indeed have different size bone structures.
Then why does foot size "shrink" when people lose weight?
DERP.0 -
Well... I have an extra set of ribs so I guess I technically have more bones than most people but I don't use that as an excuse!
Unfortunately all it means for me is that my ribs stick out whenever I wanted to be back anywhere in the low to mid 120s. I never liked it so I never wanted to be that light, but I'm learning to live with it.
My ribs stick out at 25% body fat (i.e. quite high up within the healthy range) because I have a big rib cage. I don't think ribs sticking out looks so bad though. It's like thigh gaps, some people get them in the healthy range, others don't. Bone structure varies more than people realise. Although bone structure isn't responsible for someone having an obese BMI.
Haha coincidentally I also have a thigh gap- but I'm around 24-27% body fat. I seem to just have an unusually WIDE frame, which sometimes makes me unhappy with pictures that are taken of me because I look bigger than I am unless I'm turned sideways in the pic and then I look skinny.
Totally agree it's not responsible for having an obese BMI- or more importantly, a high BF%.
having a wider pelvis would make it more likely that you'd have a thigh gap at a healthy body fat percentage, because if you have a wider pelvis, the joint between the pelvis and femur are further apart, i.e. there's more space between your leg bones, so easier to get a thigh gap. I kind of have half a thigh gap, but my pelvis is quite narrow compared to my shoulders and rib cage. My body's weird like that.
also to clarify re obese BMI - while frame size is not responsible, muscle mass can be (but that comes from bigger muscles not a larger frame) and that almost always only applies to men as women are limited in how much actual muscle mass they can add.
I'm actually just barely on the high end of normal and my body fat is 25.5% If I gained 3-5 pounds of muscle, which I could easily do (and plan to) I'll be overweight (and have less than 25% body fat). I couldn't make it to obese, but there are few men who could either.
yeah, this is what tends to happen.
men have more potential to gain lean mass, looking at the BMI scatter plots (posted on another thread), there are some men in the obese range of BMI while their body fat percentage is in the healthy range - and I'd guess they're all large framed strength athletes (or if not actual weight lifters, then highly proficient at sports that require a high level of strength, or manual labourers in a job that requires a high level of strength) - women don't have the testosterone to make those kinds of gains though, and sedentary men will not have enough additional muscle mass to put their weight far from the normal BMI range.
I'm large framed (and female), my BMI is in the overweight range (25-29) when I'm around 23%+ body fat, but at 28% body fat (the cut-off between healthy and overfat) I'm still in the overweight range, not yet in the obese range. At 35% (obese bf%) I'm around the cut-off between overweight and obese, i.e. 30+ (if I recall correctly, it could still be within the overweight range, I didn't redo the maths just now, so this is from memory when I did the maths before). I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to gain enough lean mass to put myself in the obese range of BMI at a healthy body fat percentage (I've already seen my noob gains). In other words, as large framed as I am, my BMI should not be in the obese range.
What's commonly misunderstood is that if you go by body fat percentage, your range of healthy weights is much smaller than any of these BMI ranges, so BMI is completely inadequate for telling someone how much they should weigh. Most of the population, their healthy weight range will be within the BMI normal range at a healthy body fat percentage. A few people will have a healthy weight range that falls partially, or completely out of the BMI normal range.... but with the exception of some male strength athletes, it will not fall far from the normal range.
But there are large numbers of people who will still be in the normal BMI range when their body fat percentage is in the overfat or obese range. BMI lulls them into a false sense of security. Additionally, many people think that they can just pick any weight within the healthy BMI range and it'll be just fine for them. It won't be. Their healthy weight range will be much smaller than the BMI range and BMI doesn't tell them where it will be. And there are people who think that everyone is better off in the low end of the BMI range and that the high end of the BMI range is too high for everyone, which is a particuarly dangerous myth that encourages larger framed people to diet down to weights that are unhealthy for them. Going back to my range of healthy weights, at 125lb (which is still in the high end of the BMI range for my height) I suffered a massive loss of strength and some other problems related to undereating. This weight is not healthy for me, even though it's near the top of the BMI range, which means most of the BMI normal range is not a healthy weight for me. The problems went away and I got my strength back around 130lb, which is right at the top of the healthy BMI range for my height... then I bulked to 140lb (overweight range) and still fitted into the same clothes I did at 125lb. I'm guessing that these are my noob gains and I can't expect to gain much more lean mass.
In any case, body fat percentage is far, far more reliable and what people need to base their goal weights on.0 -
Then why doesn't every 5'6" 130 lb woman wear the same size shoes? Yes, most of the "big bones" comments are excuses but different people do indeed have different size bone structures.
Then why does foot size "shrink" when people lose weight?
DERP.
My feet didn't shrink when I lost weight. (I went from obese to healthy) I had a wide size 3 foot when I was obese and I have a wide size 3 foot now. I still can't buy normal shoes. I can only buy kids shoes from specialist shoe companies that do wide fittings.
I'm short with a large frame, and my body's bone structure is short and wide all over, including my feet. It's a PITA when it comes to buying shoes. I don't know any female that has fewer pairs of shoes than me. I have two pairs of shoes and one pair of flip-flops (and my feet are wider than the actual flip-flop, while the length of it is perfect). Most men have more shoes than me.
And you can't tell me that the bone structure of my feet is average or typical, because if so then why the heck is every single size three shoe made for women too freaking narrow for my foot? I'd love more pairs of shoes, honestly. But until someone opens up a shoe boutique for neanderthal women I have no chance. (yes I blame neanderthal genes for this seeing as my foot's a near perfect match for the only neanderthal footprint that's preserved in the fossil record... they were short and large framed too and I have the rib cage and shoulders to match too)
I think in a lot of people, shoe size does correlate with height frame size, i.e. taller people tend to have longer feet and larger framed people tend to have wider feet. Of course, due to the nature of human variation, the correlation is not perfect and there will be people who don't fit that trend, but average it out and there is still a trend there.0 -
Yeah. I'm not fat; I'm just big-boned.0
-
Frame width and heights differ, but overall when taking into consideration the frame of any person, the PERCENTAGE of circumference for bones for each person is about the same.
The "big boned" statement to bigger people was basically made up to lessen the blow on the weight.
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 nutrition0 -
There are variations in bone thickness, length and density. But, bones don't jiggle.0
-
People do however have differnt bone structure. My hip bones are much wider set then many people I know so obviously I will never be as small as them due to my bones. Yes the bones themselves are not really bigger but the way my body is built is "larger", and not the same as everyone else.
^ same. I too have wide hips, and even as I lose I know I won't shrink much more in that area than I already have, and I've come to accept that and be happy with them the way they are now.0 -
People trying to be kind have called me Big Boned my whole life. This X-ray of a 900 pound man shows what a load of crap that was.
Bless their hearts for trying to be nice
:
Weird, skeleton and body facing forward but head facing to the back..:grumble:
You're right! I didn't see that. Good catch! :drinker:0 -
No no no. Look at some studies of DEXA scans. I have a very small frame .0
-
The term "big-boned" just means bigger skeleton. Usually, very tall people are "big-boned," but not always.0
-
I have a medium frame. A website told me so.0
-
Obviously frame size varies, just not by feet in width.
This is clearly photoshopped.0 -
^ I'd like to respectfully point out the difference between foot size and bone size.
BUT FEET ARE BONES. DUH.0 -
Then why doesn't every 5'6" 130 lb woman wear the same size shoes? Yes, most of the "big bones" comments are excuses but different people do indeed have different size bone structures.
Then why does foot size "shrink" when people lose weight?
DERP.
I had high arches. When I got pregnant, my arches fell. When I lost weight, the pressure was released from my arches and now they are normal.0
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