I am NOT large framed--LMAO

chaos416
chaos416 Posts: 89 Member
in Getting Started
So...this evening hubby and I are sitting around talking about his recent weight loss and my new journey toward weight loss. He's a sneaky guy in matters like this and had started losing weight before he ever told me about it. Anyhow, we got to talking about target weights and I found a calculator and punched his data in and then measured his wrist to confirm a medium body frame. That made me curious about the numbers, so I measured my own wrist at 5.75 inches. BAM! For my height at 5' 1/2" I am large framed. Right. I don't think so. Been small framed/boned all my life, I seriously doubt that has changed. Of course it would be a nifty shortcut in my weightloss goals!

I'm almost tempted to make a doctor appointment just to discuss this.
«1

Replies

  • ekat120
    ekat120 Posts: 407 Member
    I'm curious about what website you used. They all seem a little different, so I'm always interested in checking out new ones :)

    I always wonder about these things, too, because it seems like frame size can vary from body part to body part. For example, I have small wrists but kinda broad shoulders.
  • chaos416
    chaos416 Posts: 89 Member
    I don't recall the calculator we used...just the first one that popped up and it happened to have frame size on it. I did immediately confirm the measurement references and found this at a National Library of Medicine site.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm
  • Missjulesdid
    Missjulesdid Posts: 1,444 Member
    Pfft, I don't think these are accurate. I am medium framed for sure. I have very small bones in my hands and narrow shoulders, average ribcage.... At my heaviest my wrist was 7.5" which put me in the "large frame" category.. DUH.. my wrists are FAT just like the rest of me so of course I'm going to have larger wrists. My wrists are now 6.75 which still puts me in the "large frame" category but at 6.5, I would be in Medium frame so I'm sure that once I lose another 50 pounds my wrists will be under 6.5"
  • sphkhn
    sphkhn Posts: 456 Member
    I have very bony wrists and mine are 6" I doubt that can get any smaller. I am still overweight BMI but I can distinctly see my collar bones, hip bones. I think I fit into the large framed category based on that and my shoulder being from joint to joint 17". Honestly I think there is no way to tell until you are close to a healthy weight.
  • ekat120
    ekat120 Posts: 407 Member
    I don't recall the calculator we used...just the first one that popped up and it happened to have frame size on it. I did immediately confirm the measurement references and found this at a National Library of Medicine site.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

    Thanks! A lot of the ones I've seen don't take into account height, which seems important...It puts me at small-framed (5'6.5" and 6" wrist), which is probably about right. But I agree with everyone that they seem pretty error-prone.
  • bokchoybaby
    bokchoybaby Posts: 62 Member
    I don't recall the calculator we used...just the first one that popped up and it happened to have frame size on it. I did immediately confirm the measurement references and found this at a National Library of Medicine site.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

    Thanks! A lot of the ones I've seen don't take into account height, which seems important...It puts me at small-framed (5'6.5" and 6" wrist), which is probably about right. But I agree with everyone that they seem pretty error-prone.
    I don't think that they're error prone as much as they're clearly not as useful for people who gain more than a modest amount of fat in their wrists.
  • Basilin
    Basilin Posts: 360 Member
    I don't recall the calculator we used...just the first one that popped up and it happened to have frame size on it. I did immediately confirm the measurement references and found this at a National Library of Medicine site.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

    Thanks! A lot of the ones I've seen don't take into account height, which seems important...It puts me at small-framed (5'6.5" and 6" wrist), which is probably about right. But I agree with everyone that they seem pretty error-prone.
    I don't think that they're error prone as much as they're clearly not as useful for people who gain more than a modest amount of fat in their wrists.

    So I suppose it's all subjective, then? I consider myself a small frame... and I know people with large and medium frames. At least, from just looking at them...
  • ExRelaySprinter
    ExRelaySprinter Posts: 874 Member
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm
    How does it work when your wrists are different sizes though?
    One of my wrists is 6.25" and the other is 6.5" (at 5ft, 3.5).
    Always thought i was Medium framed. :huh:
  • MizTerry
    MizTerry Posts: 3,763 Member
    Wow...at 5'9" and a wrist of 6.4", I am medium framed. I've never been a small girl by any stretch of the word due to my build.
  • spickard34
    spickard34 Posts: 303 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.
  • chaos416
    chaos416 Posts: 89 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    I'm curious, how did your science class explain the weight difference? For me, at 5', the healthy weight range is from 90 something pounds up to 137 across the 'frame' sizes. Sure, muscle takes up less space than fat, but weight is weight. The charts are not about size, so why the range?

    Btw, I've been at 105 and even less weight for different reasons in the past, both for illness--I have Crohn's-- and for a short time due to excercise for weight loss in my 20's. A whole lot of differnce in health at the same weight!
  • Basilin
    Basilin Posts: 360 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    This seems wrong; no two people are exactly the same. I found an article that actually states your bones change with your weight, even!

    "A recent article has also highlighted how the femoral neck width of obese people changes to accommodate the added weight. In this case the width of the femoral neck has increased to dissipate weight throughout the bony area by increasing surface area and strength through redistribution of bone. This is an example of active bone remodelling adapting to changes that the person has gone through in life."

    https://thesebonesofmine.wordpress.com/category/idiosyncratic-variation/
  • JSE81
    JSE81 Posts: 114 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    I dunno if I agree with that. My gym buddy is the same height at 6'3 and we couldnt be any different in body type. We measure so different in the wrists, hips, ankles, shoulders. He would have maybe a 6.5" wrist whereas mine is 9.5". That sounds weird, but he is a medical professional so this stuff fascinates him.
  • sarah_hite
    sarah_hite Posts: 41 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    This seems wrong; no two people are exactly the same. I found an article that actually states your bones change with your weight, even!

    "A recent article has also highlighted how the femoral neck width of obese people changes to accommodate the added weight. In this case the width of the femoral neck has increased to dissipate weight throughout the bony area by increasing surface area and strength through redistribution of bone. This is an example of active bone remodelling adapting to changes that the person has gone through in life."

    https://thesebonesofmine.wordpress.com/category/idiosyncratic-variation/

    Yes, some people definitely have larger frames. For instance, I have always had a very large frame, even before I gained weight. My wrist is about 7.5", and it doesn't have much fat on it either. My head is too big to fit most hats, bracelets never fit me, my shoe size is quite large, and even my ring size is large (though it has been decreasing :) )
  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    I dunno if I agree with that. My gym buddy is the same height at 6'3 and we couldnt be any different in body type. We measure so different in the wrists, hips, ankles, shoulders. He would have maybe a 6.5" wrist whereas mine is 9.5". That sounds weird, but he is a medical professional so this stuff fascinates him.

    I think this person is confusing bone size and frame size. While it is true there is no such thing as "big boned" bones are roughly the same size if we're talking diameter, the FRAME that they build can be quite different. Long legs or short legs, long arms or short arms, broad hips or narrow, broad shoulders or narrow. It's FRAME size that can impact where your goals will be as far as a healthy weight.

    Also, even the estimates for frame size should be taken with a grain of salt. My wrists and feet are tiny but I have broad shoulders, a barrel for a rib cage and long legs. That, combined with a decent amount of muscle mass generally means I will always be on the higher end of BMI, no matter what size my wrists are....

    For reference, I am still classified as overweight in the picture on the right. Frame size based on my wrist measurements would say that I am SMALL framed, so I should be aiming for the lower end of the BMI scale. I would have to lose an additional 25 to 40 pounds to be in the ideal weight range for someone small framed, NOT happening, the difference between the two pictures is only 33 pounds.

    8b6829e13003c149d1048522ce25882d1441.jpg

    Interestingly, I found another calculator that uses elbow breadth, and I'm large framed according to that measurement. My body is clearly very confused! :laugh:
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    I dunno if I agree with that. My gym buddy is the same height at 6'3 and we couldnt be any different in body type. We measure so different in the wrists, hips, ankles, shoulders. He would have maybe a 6.5" wrist whereas mine is 9.5". That sounds weird, but he is a medical professional so this stuff fascinates him.

    I think this person is confusing bone size and frame size. While it is true there is no such thing as "big boned" bones are roughly the same size if we're talking diameter, the FRAME that they build can be quite different. Long legs or short legs, long arms or short arms, broad hips or narrow, broad shoulders or narrow. It's FRAME size that can impact where your goals will be as far as a healthy weight.

    Also, even the estimates for frame size should be taken with a grain of salt. My wrists and feet are tiny but I have broad shoulders, a barrel for a rib cage and long legs. That, combined with a decent amount of muscle mass generally means I will always be on the higher end of BMI, no matter what size my wrists are....

    For reference, I am still classified as overweight in the picture on the right. Frame size based on my wrist measurements would say that I am SMALL framed, so I should be aiming for the lower end of the BMI scale. I would have to lose an additional 25 to 40 pounds to be in the ideal weight range for someone small framed, NOT happening, the difference between the two pictures is only 33 pounds.

    8b6829e13003c149d1048522ce25882d1441.jpg

    Interestingly, I found another calculator that uses elbow breadth, and I'm large framed according to that measurement. My body is clearly very confused! :laugh:

    I believe that the weight of each person's skeleton is within a pretty small range - however, as you say, someone's frame can be very different. I am not exactly sure how this impacts weight in general as such. I have a big rib cage for example. Does that mean that I have bigger organs, tissue etc filling it up? (question not necessarily aimed at you - more rhetorical). Have not really looked into it. I also have huge man hands - but according to the link, I am on the border of medium and large framed.

    However, I would think a large contributor is also muscle mass. I am 8lbs 'overweight' according to the BMI at my current weight (my avi pic was taken last week). However, I lift a lot and have a very high LBM compared to most women. Generally, the range for the BMI is not too far off - where someone may fall in that is very wide. To get to the bottom of the healthy range however, I would have to have a 0% body fat and lose about 8lb of LBM - lol.

    Many people think they are 'big boned' - but often it is just a higher BF% - people often underestimate how much they have to lose/can lose. I know I did at first.

    Don't mind me...just thinking out loud :happy:
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Yes, it does mean that. A larger rib cage means bigger organs. A larger frame is larger, so there is more space for everything. More of everything. Bigger organs, more body mass, etc.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Yes, it does mean that. A larger rib cage means bigger organs. A larger frame is larger, so there is more space for everything. More of everything. Bigger organs, more body mass, etc.

    Makes sense...I mean, I am sure I do not have organs sloshing about in an empty space...just never really thought about it =)

    Also makes sense based on the very large 'healthy range' weight. At my height there is a 40lb range.
  • rosehips60
    rosehips60 Posts: 1,030 Member
    This post made me curious because I have the scrawniest wrists in the world no matter how big the rest of me gets. I just measured mine and found out that @ 5' 10" I'm a small frame with wrists that just barely break 6". I have to agree with the OP who said that some people are different sizes in different parts of their body. I have very small wrists but very large hips, even at my lowest weight of about 155 I never got into a pant smaller than a 14. I think the frame size issue is fun to look at but hardly scientifically accurate:happy:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    The other aspect to keep in mind regarding different bone sizes (there are differences) and frame sizes. I don't think really always the same thing, though they generally go together, but don't have to.

    You can have wider shoulders and more expanded ribs compared to others your general size, perhaps bigger hips too - and that means it might be easier for you to carry more weight easier, not as much stress on the body because of bigger joints, and it may not even look like it. Also means no matter how much you lose some parts will always be big.

    We've all seen the people, they look a tad large, sure, but then they mention the weight, and you can't believe that much weight fits in the package you are seeing. And it's not like a great % of muscle either making it up taking up less space. They truly just carry it better on a large frame.
    Put that same over weight part on small framed person, and it might appear they are heavier than they really are.

    Kind of like the waif models have certain body proportions that are only possible with their frame size, and bone size. Small in both cases.

    Some with a large frame can't approach looking like that - they'll have the curves no matter what. Though with bodyfat too low it might look very sickly sooner than a waif small frame would.

    But true it generally does go along with height.

    And very true if you can't get good measure of just the wrist bone area, but only with fat included - your placement will be wrong.
  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    I dunno if I agree with that. My gym buddy is the same height at 6'3 and we couldnt be any different in body type. We measure so different in the wrists, hips, ankles, shoulders. He would have maybe a 6.5" wrist whereas mine is 9.5". That sounds weird, but he is a medical professional so this stuff fascinates him.

    I think this person is confusing bone size and frame size. While it is true there is no such thing as "big boned" bones are roughly the same size if we're talking diameter, the FRAME that they build can be quite different. Long legs or short legs, long arms or short arms, broad hips or narrow, broad shoulders or narrow. It's FRAME size that can impact where your goals will be as far as a healthy weight.

    Also, even the estimates for frame size should be taken with a grain of salt. My wrists and feet are tiny but I have broad shoulders, a barrel for a rib cage and long legs. That, combined with a decent amount of muscle mass generally means I will always be on the higher end of BMI, no matter what size my wrists are....

    For reference, I am still classified as overweight in the picture on the right. Frame size based on my wrist measurements would say that I am SMALL framed, so I should be aiming for the lower end of the BMI scale. I would have to lose an additional 25 to 40 pounds to be in the ideal weight range for someone small framed, NOT happening, the difference between the two pictures is only 33 pounds.

    8b6829e13003c149d1048522ce25882d1441.jpg

    Interestingly, I found another calculator that uses elbow breadth, and I'm large framed according to that measurement. My body is clearly very confused! :laugh:

    I believe that the weight of each person's skeleton is within a pretty small range - however, as you say, someone's frame can be very different. I am not exactly sure how this impacts weight in general as such. I have a big rib cage for example. Does that mean that I have bigger organs, tissue etc filling it up? (question not necessarily aimed at you - more rhetorical). Have not really looked into it. I also have huge man hands - but according to the link, I am on the border of medium and large framed.

    However, I would think the biggest impact is muscle mass. I am 8lbs 'overweight' according to the BMI at my current weight (my avi pic was taken last week). However, I lift a lot and have a very high LBM compared to most women. Generally, the range for the BMI is not too far off - where someone may fall in that is very wide. To get to the bottom of the healthy range however, I would have to have a 0% body fat and lose about 8lb of LBM - lol.

    Many people think they are 'big boned' - but often it is just a higher BF% - people often underestimate how much they have to lose/can lose. I know I did at first.

    Don't mind me...just thinking out loud :happy:

    The reason frame size would potentially have an impact has to do with how much space is available for muscle insertion and the length of the muscles on the frame, so yes, it is ultimately about muscle mass. I'm only a few pounds "overweight" in that picture and while I'm probably at a healthy body fat (based on scale so rough estimate) I'm still at the higher end of healthy, so I certainly still have some I could lose, but it's more in the range of 10 to 15, not 25 to 40.
  • Daiako
    Daiako Posts: 12,545 Member
    *skeptical face*

    According to that link I'm large framed and I'm hard pressed to believe that.




    I lied, medium framed/borderline large.

    Still skeptical.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member

    The reason frame size would potentially have an impact has to do with how much space is available for muscle insertion and the length of the muscles on the frame, so yes, it is ultimately about muscle mass. I'm only a few pounds "overweight" in that picture and while I'm probably at a healthy body fat (based on scale so rough estimate) I'm still at the higher end of healthy, so I certainly still have some I could lose, but it's more in the range of 10 to 15, not 25 to 40.

    So you were looking at the middle of the range with the 25 - 40? Many of us, if looking at it at all, really need to be looking at the top end of the range - at least as a guide. The mirror can usually tell us the rest.
  • wonderwoman325
    wonderwoman325 Posts: 49
    Huh...according to this, I would be MEDIUM framed. (5'6" and wrist of 6.5 inches). I always thought I was large framed.

    Nah, I'M JUST FAT! *lol*
  • misskissmck
    misskissmck Posts: 9 Member
    i dont know how accurate this is ....but i always heard to encircle your wrist with your thumb and middle finger....if they over lap your small boned...if they just meet, medium, if they dont meet you are large boned/
  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member

    The reason frame size would potentially have an impact has to do with how much space is available for muscle insertion and the length of the muscles on the frame, so yes, it is ultimately about muscle mass. I'm only a few pounds "overweight" in that picture and while I'm probably at a healthy body fat (based on scale so rough estimate) I'm still at the higher end of healthy, so I certainly still have some I could lose, but it's more in the range of 10 to 15, not 25 to 40.

    So you were looking at the middle of the range with the 25 - 40? Many of us, if looking at it at all, really need to be looking at the top end of the range - at least as a guide. The mirror can usually tell us the rest.

    BMI range for me is 124 to 164 so losing 25 to 40 pounds would put me in the low to mid range of BMI, which if I measured my wrists and went by what that says about my frame size is where I should be. My point is that even those frame size estimates can be questionable. I know I should NOT be aiming for the low end of BMI, I've been told as much by doctors and trainers. I have a large frame, even if my wrist size says I'm small. I was about 166 or 168 in that picture, I'm 163 now and aiming for 160. I am debating if I want to drop in to the 150's from there are just focus on lifting and recomp, but even if I decide to drop some more weight, I doubt I'll want to go below 155 and certainly not below 150.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member

    The reason frame size would potentially have an impact has to do with how much space is available for muscle insertion and the length of the muscles on the frame, so yes, it is ultimately about muscle mass. I'm only a few pounds "overweight" in that picture and while I'm probably at a healthy body fat (based on scale so rough estimate) I'm still at the higher end of healthy, so I certainly still have some I could lose, but it's more in the range of 10 to 15, not 25 to 40.

    So you were looking at the middle of the range with the 25 - 40? Many of us, if looking at it at all, really need to be looking at the top end of the range - at least as a guide. The mirror can usually tell us the rest.

    BMI range for me is 124 to 164 so losing 25 to 40 pounds would put me in the low to mid range of BMI, which if I measured my wrists and went by what that says about my frame size is where I should be. My point is that even those frame size estimates can be questionable. I know I should NOT be aiming for the low end of BMI, I've been told as much by doctors and trainers. I have a large frame, even if my wrist size says I'm small. I was about 166 or 168 in that picture, I'm 163 now and aiming for 160. I am debating if I want to drop in to the 150's from there are just focus on lifting and recomp, but even if I decide to drop some more weight, I doubt I'll want to go below 155 and certainly not below 150.

    Ahh..got it. I get confuzzled easily sometimes =).

    Agree - those calculators (while eliciting interesting conversations) are pretty crappy.
  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member

    The reason frame size would potentially have an impact has to do with how much space is available for muscle insertion and the length of the muscles on the frame, so yes, it is ultimately about muscle mass. I'm only a few pounds "overweight" in that picture and while I'm probably at a healthy body fat (based on scale so rough estimate) I'm still at the higher end of healthy, so I certainly still have some I could lose, but it's more in the range of 10 to 15, not 25 to 40.

    So you were looking at the middle of the range with the 25 - 40? Many of us, if looking at it at all, really need to be looking at the top end of the range - at least as a guide. The mirror can usually tell us the rest.

    BMI range for me is 124 to 164 so losing 25 to 40 pounds would put me in the low to mid range of BMI, which if I measured my wrists and went by what that says about my frame size is where I should be. My point is that even those frame size estimates can be questionable. I know I should NOT be aiming for the low end of BMI, I've been told as much by doctors and trainers. I have a large frame, even if my wrist size says I'm small. I was about 166 or 168 in that picture, I'm 163 now and aiming for 160. I am debating if I want to drop in to the 150's from there are just focus on lifting and recomp, but even if I decide to drop some more weight, I doubt I'll want to go below 155 and certainly not below 150.

    Ahh..got it. I get confuzzled easily sometimes =).

    Agree - those calculators (while eliciting interesting conversations) are pretty crappy.

    Nah, I just make things more complicated then they need to be. Hazards of being a science teacher.
  • Hearts_2015
    Hearts_2015 Posts: 12,031 Member
    In science class I learnt that we all have the same frame big or small. I have actually looked this up to. There is no such thing as big boned or small boned. If you take two 5'6 Females and one is 125 and one is 200 and do an xray the bones are the same. I hate when people say that I think we just all carry our weight different.

    This seems wrong; no two people are exactly the same. I found an article that actually states your bones change with your weight, even!

    "A recent article has also highlighted how the femoral neck width of obese people changes to accommodate the added weight. In this case the width of the femoral neck has increased to dissipate weight throughout the bony area by increasing surface area and strength through redistribution of bone. This is an example of active bone remodeling adapting to changes that the person has gone through in life."

    https://thesebonesofmine.wordpress.com/category/idiosyncratic-variation/
    very interested to read this... thanks! The bone adapting makes sense... they are constantly changing for various reasons.
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    The wrist thing doesn't work for me. I have small wrists (and long fingers, index and thumb overlap), but am most definitely large framed.

Categories