Proof there's no such thing as big bones

I've seen some purdy big bones in my day.

I see what you did there :-)

They lied to me:sad:

They were only trying to protect you.......

I have curvy bones.

You might want to have that looked into. There is medicine that can help alleviate such problems.

i call myself "big boned" as in - i have a very large frame. You'd be lucky if you ever saw me below 175 lbs. I'm 6', and I've seen men taller than me who weighed significantly less.

I always assumed people who said "big boned" meant "larger frame". I'm 5'10", and even at my thinnest I still have broad shoulders and hips. Surely we can agree that people have different sized frames?

I never associated the expression big boned with larger frame but I should have. Apparently that's what the expression should mean, even though people I grew up around didn't use it that way. The medical field divides human bone structure into small, medium, and large. I didn't know that.

http://www.healthstatus.com/health_blog/body-fat-calculator-2/frame-size-how-much-does-it-affect-your-weight

Yep, people def have different sized frames, but it's NOT a reason for obesity. However, ladies in particular, need to realize that they may never be a size 4 or 6 because they have a frame larger than would allow, even at low body fat. It's so important for us to be happy and healthy as ourselves, not as what we perceive we should be.

Removing "big bones" from the conept of fat, yes - bones are different sizes. There's not too much variance among healthy adults in bone diameter, but there's a lot of variance in bone length. Says my 6'5 husband to his 5'4 sister. Being taller gives you more height to distribute the weight. At 5'11 my "ideal body weight" is much higher than someone who is 5'2. I've always taken "big boned" to be a reference to frame, and in the context of weight, the principle that taller people can/should weigh more than shorter people. IT's an expression that has been misused in euphemism for being fat/obese/chubby/whatever, and sort of evolved into an excuse.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/41/c5/0c/41c50c45ef4cc5807cee9e77958fb3ee.jpg

As someone who in deed has big bones the Proof is in my wrist bones but x-rays would also show you. I beg to differ.

I agree. My mother and my sister are very small boned. Their wrists are an inch in circumference smaller and their wedding rings will only fit on my pinky. I am about the same height and weight as they are so how else would someone classify it if not that my bones are bigger/thicker than theirs? There are plenty of height/weight charts that take frame size into account for a reason.

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.

People do have different frame sizes. And just because there are overweight small framed people does not mean there are not fit large framed people. I have a small frame and I'm lean. My shoulders are 34 inches, my rib cage 26 inches, my waist 23 inches, my hips 34 inches.

Oh I dunno, I have a relatively big bone.. :indifferent:

On my right arm.

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.

There are definitely people with "larger" bones. When my sister and I were both skinny, my shoulders were much wider than hers, but she was much taller. On the flip side I have tiny hands. I wear a size 5 ring (even while overweight).

I'm sure the "larger" bones weigh more. But not 300lb more. Maybe 2 or 3?


ps I'm not short at 5'-6.5"

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.

That's perfectly true and I'm sure everyone is familiar with people who use big boned as an attempt to explain what is actually too much fat. On the other hand, there's absolutely no reason that 5'5" woman needs to be 15 to 20% body fat when most sources I've seen allow 28 to 30% for healthy levels in adult women.

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.

My bones are very confused. I'm 5'8" wear a size 6 shoe, have a 6" wrist but the shoulders and rib cage of a linebacker, by my foot and wrist size I would classify as small framed, one look at my shoulders, however contradicts that classification....

Are we related? I'm 5'8'' with a wrist circumference of 5 and a half, and I'm 5 and a half in shoes, but 6 fits fine (have just measured myself, to make sure).

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.