No really... I AM big boned..?

Regardless of size and shape I don't think anyones bones could be heavy enough to account for their bmi being in the obese range,, IMO

Bones weighed in isolation - no, it is unlikely. However, frame size/skeletal structure does affect clothing sizes, which is what the OP asked about. It may also have an effect on what weight is/looks 'healthy' on an individual, which can mean that their BMI - not a good measure for individuals in any case - is comparatively high, while their actual physique/physical health is very good. For example, my doctor-dictated 'healthy weight' will still have me in the high reaches of 'Overweight' according to the BMI chart. My doctor knows that with my frame/body type, a 'healthy' BMI would be anything but healthy for me.

I agree what is healthy for one person varies isn't necessarily what is healthy for another person.
Which is why I said the obese range and not overweight.

( and yes my post was off topic to what the OP asked)

Yes, but the point is that some people, even larger-framed and more muscular than I, might have a healthy weight that puts them in the 'obese' category, according to the BMI chart. Humans come in a remarkable range of sizes and configurations. I'm sure you know that many elite athletes and male film stars who have very high levels of muscle are considered 'obese' in BMI terms, yet virtually everyone would agree that they are very healthy. It's always dangerous to make generalisations about physical structure, especially in the judgemental tone adopted by many in this thread (not you specifically), because there will always be people who sit, very healthily, outside the populational averages that things like BMI are based on, whether by nature, or deliberate design.

No one said that everyone's skeleton is exactly the same.

It's more a case that no one is so 'big boned' that they are naturally fat. The weight range for large boned people is higher than it is for smaller boned people, but it's still in the healthy range.

It's an argument I used a lot at one point. "I'm big boned, I'll never weigh less than 147lbs, I'm just not built to."

I'm now 127 and my frame isn't actually that big at all.

to deny that bone widths and densities don't differ from person to person is absolutely ridiculous. also, the term "big boned" is used to describe the size of one's frame. bone width, bone density, and size of frame is very largely a hereditary trait.

however, this has no correlation with increased body fat percentage. increased weight, yes, of course-- if you're a bigger/taller/wider person, you're gonna weigh more. but this should not be used as a reason for having a larger body fat percentage than your same height/smaller frame counterparts. and % body fat is what matters, not weight.

i am of nordic blood and i have always known myself to be "big boned". my siblings and i all are, but none of us are overweight (we're all actually considered quite slender), however, we're all on the top end of the "what you should weigh for your height" charts. call it "big blood", if you will. my father was 6'7" and a solid 280 lbs, and a VERY strong nordic blood line. he was a giant.

i'm 5'8" (and am the "shorty" of my siblings) and i have gotten down to 130 before, and i looked terrible. you could see my ribs through my back, my hip bones stuck out extremely far, my clavicle was ridiculously prominent, you could even see my sternum. i looked bony and sick, (and i was), yet i was at a weight that other women i know that are around my height either strive for, try to stay at, or even try to keep under. being at that weight for me literally made me sick, and was unsustanable for me.

when i stay at 150, i look and feel the best, and is a size 6 in jeans for me. yet, if other women i know that are my height went up to 150, it would require them to gain 20 pounds of fat and go up 2 jean sizes. people are amazed when they hear what i actually weigh. i'm currently at 154, i let myself flucuate 5 (and only 5) pounds, and use mfp as a food log when i'm trying to cut a few lbs.

Skeletons are all about the same size. No such thing as "big boned". Lol.

My wrists have little to no fat on them - the bones are clearly visible even though I'm overweight. They measure 7" around with the tape pulled tight. I can't touch my finger to my thumb with a firm grip, even though my middle finger is 3" long (hello ladies) and from my finger tip to the bottom of my palm is 7". My shoulders are 55" around the tops. Some people genuinely are big boned.

Big bones still don't make you fat, though.

My husband just measured. My middle finger is also 3 inches, and my wrist is 6.5" (still considered "big boned" as it's more than 6 1/4 inches and I'm over 5'2''... barely). The point is that when you're fat, you generally can't wrap your fingers around your wrist, and your wrist measures larger. Once you lose weight, VOILA! Magically you aren't "big boned" anymore. I sincerely believe this is a myth.

Fat people have fat even on the pads of their feet-which is why it's not uncommon to lose 1/2 inch or so when you drop a significant amount of weight (the doctor told me this when I did, in fact, lose 1/2 inch of height).

And my point is there is no fat on my wrist, of all areas There's hardly any skin to pinch even. It aint gettin' any smaller.