?? Big bones and BMI ??

-shrug- honestly I have no idea if there's truth or not. I'm a really big girl (at my heaviest well over 300lbs) and have always had tiny wrists and ankles. I can easily overlap fingers around my wrists. I know I have long fingers, though. BUt I also have always had wide shoulders, hips, etc. even when thin. Soooo I just ignore it. BMI is not so accurate, and I'd rather focus on factors like body fat percentage anyway.

BMI is a range - and a pretty big range.

For a small woman like myself, the range is about 30 lbs. That more than accommodates different frames.
When most people say, "Oh, I just have big bones. I have big wrists. I was always naturally buxom," etc - it's just a justification. Even a larger natural frame does not put you out of a 30-lb range if you are otherwise slim and healthy.

For someone who is 6', the range of healthy BMIs is 45 lbs.

BMI works for just about everyone, with some rare exceptions, like Olympic weight lifters!

BMI works for just about everyone, with some rare exceptions, like Olympic weight lifters!

BMI works for "some", but doesn't work for most people.....especially if you are of a Muscular Frame or Big Boned.

By definition, BMI is applicable to most people. It's based on norms and averages.
[/quote]

Well, my sister who is 5ft 5 and Big Boned is 170lbs (and looks great at this size). She has a BMI of 28 and would be classed as overweight .
Her BMI at 25 (which is what they say she should be at..... (at least!) is 150 lbs,......but she would look practically skeletal at that weight!
And i know many people like this.
We are Black also, and i don't think BMI takes that into consideration....as we are known to weigh heavier than White and Asian people.

the wrist thing doesnt really make sense because it doesnt take finger length in account.

Heh, this is what I was thinking. I've always had pretty narrow wrists (I think, I've worn smaller sizes in watches and such) even when overweight, but the overlapping finger thing seems more related to the fact that I have long skinny fingers. I also have a difference (probably noticeable only to me, but still) between my left and right sides, which has to be related to muscle and my right arm being dominant and stronger.

So while I think for other reasons that I am average to small framed, I don't think the wrist test works.

BMI works for just about everyone, with some rare exceptions, like Olympic weight lifters!

BMI works for "some", but doesn't work for most people.....especially if you are of a Muscular Frame or Big Boned.

By definition, BMI is applicable to most people. It's based on norms and averages.

Seems to work for women more than men, too, which would make sense given muscle development.

That said, if one is concerned that it doesn't fit them, body fat is better measure for an individual.

if i'm not mistaken BMI charts were created in the 19th century for white people. back then there were no female athletes for the most part. it also didnt take into account different ethnicities (for instance black and latina women tend to have less risk of osteoporosis than white and asian women because of differences in bone density).

in any case, even if all things were equal, more girls now, thank the gods, are involved in athletics which is going to mean more lean body mass. i dont know if the more updated charts look take those things into account. but generally speaking i dont think people who are legitimately overweight need a chart to tell them they could lose a few lbs :laugh:

I have super-dense bones and a large bone structure - to the point where I've been told by more than one doctor that I will be lucky to ever be below a size 14 and shouldn't get below 180. 180 puts my BMI even as a large-framed woman as overweight.

BMI works for just about everyone, with some rare exceptions, like Olympic weight lifters!

BMI works for "some", but doesn't work for most people.....especially if you are of a Muscular Frame or Big Boned.

By definition, BMI is applicable to most people. It's based on norms and averages.

Seems to work for women more than men, too, which would make sense given muscle development.

That said, if one is concerned that it doesn't fit them, body fat is better measure for an individual.

if i'm not mistaken BMI charts were created in the 19th century for white people. back then there were no female athletes for the most part. it also didnt take into account different ethnicities (for instance black and latina women tend to have less risk of osteoporosis than white and asian women because of differences in bone density).

in any case, even if all things were equal, more girls now, thank the gods, are involved in athletics which is going to mean more lean body mass. i dont know if the more updated charts look take those things into account. but generally speaking i dont think people who are legitimately overweight need a chart to tell them they could lose a few lbs :laugh:

There's some chart floating around that compares the distribution of body fat and bmi and seems to indicate that it's FAR more likely that bmi under reports rather than over reports overweight for women. In other words, that you are much more likely to have too much body fat at an okay bmi than the other way around. I'll try to find it.

Anyway, doesn't mean there aren't outliers, which is why individuals need to look at themselves and go to body fat if they think it doesn't fit them, as I said. But the belief by some that it's likely to not fit most people or widely overstate the overweight or obesity rate due to muscle mass for the average person seems to me to be quite wrong.

Now, could it not fit specific groups as well as others, because it primarily used a white population pool (or majority white) and there are differences between populations? Certainly possible, but that's a different question. I do know that the bmi skews high for certain Asian populations so it certainly could skew the other way for other groups.

my doctor a slight asian woman said my bmi says I'm morbidly obsess and need to loose 56 this would put me at 136 which would be healthy at most people

however I sort of disagree when i was 16 had bulimic tendencies at my skinniest i was about 150lbs which is what I'm aiming for again 14lbs less would look drastic on me i feel

I agree the "wrist measurement" is not valid. "Big boned" is more of a euphemism for someone with a higher than average fat free mass (FFM). FFM includes everything that is not fat--bones, muscles, organs, etc.

The range of FFM levels for females at any given height can range over 30-35 pounds, which means the range of what can be considered an "ideal" weight is even larger.

The best way to determine an "ideal weight" is to assess body fat. From that number you can estimate FFM. With FFM, you determine your target BF% and add that to FFM and you have a decent target weight goal.

I don't think we need to "epheumize" Fat Free Mass.I'm 172 with 129 pounds of fat free mass (25% BF). I'm proud to have all the muscle I worked hard for and I don't need it attributed to my bones. That being said, I also have a large wrist, but that has nothing to do with my muscle. That's genetics and hard work, not bones.

I totally agree with you on the fat % target though and using that to get your ideal weight. At my ideal of all ideal weights, I will be 155, and still overweight according to BMI, yet 20% BF.

18 months ago I had a wrist measurement of 6" and BMI of 15
Now I have a 7" wrist and 25 BMI so I don't really take much notice of wrist measurements as I feel for that much difference on the BMI scale 1" difference isn't a lot at all.
I'm 5'4" and consider myself to be big boned because even at my lowest weight my frame although very skinny and all bone I was still quite broad unfortunately.

I found this on another thread that was talking about frame size. It uses real wrist measurements. I may be a freak. I am 355 but I still have relatively boney wrists so I am pretty confident I got an accurate assessment as Large Boned. Really more of a confirmation of information back before I put all the weight on.

https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz

There's some chart floating around that compares the distribution of body fat and bmi and seems to indicate that it's FAR more likely that bmi under reports rather than over reports overweight for women. In other words, that you are much more likely to have too much body fat at an okay bmi than the other way around. I'll try to find it.

Anyway, doesn't mean there aren't outliers, which is why individuals need to look at themselves and go to body fat if they think it doesn't fit them, as I said. But the belief by some that it's likely to not fit most people or widely overstate the overweight or obesity rate due to muscle mass for the average person seems to me to be quite wrong.

Now, could it not fit specific groups as well as others, because it primarily used a white population pool (or majority white) and there are differences between populations? Certainly possible, but that's a different question. I do know that the bmi skews high for certain Asian populations so it certainly could skew the other way for other groups.

Exactly what I was coming in to write.

If you're very overweight (bmi 40 or so) don't worry about whether your goal would give you a bmi of 27 or even 30. Get there first and then decide if you need to lose more.

OP--hopefully you got your questions answered 3 years ago when you started this thread.

I always thought I was fairly large boned because I have quite broad shoulders and hips (hips will not go below 34" or so), but my weight has never gone over 150(I am 5'10), and it only hit that high because I had undiagnosed hypothyroidism. I look pretty flabby at that weight, actually, my natural setpoint weight being 140 or so since I reached my full height at 14.