You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''

Options
2456725

Replies

  • star1407
    star1407 Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Silly thing to say, some of us have a larger frame, some are more petite. I can't go below a size 12 and look healthy. My head and bones are larger than my friend who has the tiniest little wrists compared to me
    We're all different in many ways, I don't get why the op doesn't understand it
  • xX_PhoenixRising_Xx
    Options
    trjjoy wrote: »
    Every so often someone on MFP will say they have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''. This is just not true. Have a look at the photos in the success story threads. People will go from 150kg to 65kg and their bodies change a LOT.

    I've only lost about 8kg but my shoulders have shrunk so much that my UK size 14/US size 12 jacket is now too big around the shoulders. It used to fit me perfectly, but I now drown in it and yes, even the sleeves have become too long.

    Your body WILL change when you lose weight. If you're a woman, you more than likely DO NOT have broad shoulders. The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG.

    I actually did used to weigh 150kg and of course my body changed a lot and my clothing size was bigger, I used to wear a 3XL top. A 3XL top now comes down to around my knees. Most of the time I'm a size Small. But I still had to buy a large band size when I bought my Fitbit. There's barely a scrap of fat on my wrists or upper body in general now, but I'm 170cm and I certainly don't have a dainty small frame. Fat and frame size don't really correlate in my opinion.

    Of course there are those that claim they're not fat they're just "big boned" but that's another matter entirely. Visually it's quite different.
  • allenpriest
    allenpriest Posts: 1,102 Member
    Options
    eringurl33 wrote: »
    Hmm. I have a big head.. Will that shrink as I lose weight? I'd love to be able to buy hats from a normal store!

    Also - I'm only being half sarcastic. I really do have a big head. : (

    My hat size (male, US) has indeed gone down 1/2 size or so after my loss to date. It's bad when you are carrying extra fat in the back of your head!
  • skinnyinnotime
    skinnyinnotime Posts: 4,141 Member
    Options
    Actually you can have a big frame and I'm a woman with broad shoulders...whilst not being overweight.
  • evileen99
    evileen99 Posts: 1,564 Member
    Options
    trjjoy wrote: »
    Your body WILL change when you lose weight. If you're a woman, you more than likely DO NOT have broad shoulders. The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG.

    Frame size has nothing to do with how broad your shoulders are; it's related to bone size/density (so yes, you can have "big bones"). Two people who are the exact same height and have the same amount of lean muscle mass can weigh different amounts based on frame size--the one with the large frame will have more bone mass, which weighs more.

    I'm 5'8". My ring size is 3.75; my wrist circumference is a little over 5". I have a small frame. It has nothing to do with my shoulders.

    https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm
  • caffeinatedcami
    caffeinatedcami Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    I do think some people use frame size as an excuse for not losing weight. And calculators may be somewhat innacurate, especially if one carries a lot of fat on his or her wrists. However, I don't think that's the case for the majority on MFP. Frame size is not being used to deny the need for weight loss. It's being offered as one of the reasons individuals of the same height and weight can look so different (in addition to muscle/fat distribution).

    There is huge variation in human morphology. I have never been clinically overweight, but I have always had large feet (US 9-9.5) even for my height. No one denies that foot size varies. I think it's odd to believe that foot proportion is the only example of skeletal variation.
  • 257_Lag
    257_Lag Posts: 1,249 Member
    Options
    Yes, I do
  • FabianMommy
    FabianMommy Posts: 78 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    Skeletal framework can vary a lot, it's nature. Compare 10 female human skeletons for example, you will find a lot of variation between them, height, size of pelvis, length of bones, foot size and so on

    I think of Taylor Swift compared to her friend, model Karlie Kloss as an example. Taylor looks to have a smaller frame than Karlie, I think they are similar heights too but I would bet Karlie is a few pounds or more heavier than Taylor because her framework is larger, even though they both ' look' to be very lean for their heights. But they are obviously both very slim and healthy, their 'numbers' will vary. Karlie also practises ballet and other forms of disciplined exercise, so she also looks to be a bit more muscular than Taylor, which again makes a difference.

    I do agree that the old chestnut of being big boned had been used as an excuse for some individuals justifying their being overweight. But the fact is bones/ skeletal frameworks vary tremendously, what matters in the end is the amount of fat a person carries which is ONE factor in determining their ideal weight.
  • FabianMommy
    FabianMommy Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    I sometimes catch myself staring at my shoulders in the gym ...I really never realised I could like the way shoulders and tops of arms look

    That must be an amazing moment!
  • CurlyCockney
    CurlyCockney Posts: 1,394 Member
    Options
    I have a small frame (with baby-like wrists), so I assume it's possible to have a large frame. I wouldn't use it as an excuse for weight though, although it's a little-known fact that I'm just short for my weight ;-)
  • UpEarly
    UpEarly Posts: 2,555 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    trjjoy wrote: »
    If you're a woman, you more than likely DO NOT have broad shoulders. The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG.

    Disagree! I do have broad shoulders. I'm also not using it as an excuse for being heavier, because I'm NOT heavier. I'm 5'9" and weigh 135 lbs, so I'm well within my healthy BMI range. I have body fat around 21% and a 26" waist.

    BUT... almost all ready-to-wear women's tops/blouses -- the seam that's supposed to reach between the collar and the point of a person's shoulder falls about an inch or two short on me (even when I buy tall sizes). When I buy a backpack (I'm a serious hiker), I have to purchase a man's harness size to fit the breadth of my shoulders. And finally, if I measure from the inside point of my collar bone to the point of my shoulder, my shoulder is 2.5 inches wider than my husband's - and he is just a shade over 6' tall.

    And to add to my broad shoulders, I actually have very long, delicate bones in my legs and arms. I have tiny wrists and ankles and wear a size 4.5-5 in a ring.

    I also have size 11 feet - they're finely boned and narrow, but long.

    There are definitely variations in human frames.

    I also don't think frame variance is a valid excuse for being overweight.
  • FabianMommy
    FabianMommy Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Missed point, hurt feelings, and denial. MFP will never change.

    What point is missed, who's hurt and who's in denial?
  • ellieliam9796
    ellieliam9796 Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    I used to weigh 105lbs and still had broad shoulders?
  • shadowconn
    shadowconn Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    Not true. My sister has a large frame, and she regularly weighs 155 - 165 pounds with the body of a sports model. I, on the other hand, need to weigh between 135 and 145, and I'd be a candidate for Fashion Magazine. BTW, I'd never be a candidate for Sports Illustrated, and she'd never be a candidate for Fashion.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Sorry but tell me again how there is no such thing as a large frame.

    Dave-bautista.jpg

    db2dc0e65be401d36e3cb94dd2833030.jpg

    Clearly we all have the same body type... muscles or not... (and a bit of eye candy for the ladies... lol)

    Batista is 6'7''. The other guy probably not.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    I never say I am "big boned" because that sounds like an excuse. The reality is that I am long boned. I have long arms and legs, my shoulders are wide, my ribcage and pelvis are wide. The only thing shorter than some is my spine, therefore I am short-waisted with an "H" shape (hips and bust similar measurement with a waist not quite as noticeable. I look best at the higher end of my "ideal" weight range.

    The upside to this is that it takes more weight to change a dress size because I put it on all over and I am constantly told I don't look like I weigh as much as I do. The downside is that it takes longer for me to get into a new size when I am losing.
  • CollieFit
    CollieFit Posts: 1,683 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    trjjoy wrote: »
    Every so often someone on MFP will say they have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''. This is just not true. Have a look at the photos in the success story threads. People will go from 150kg to 65kg and their bodies change a LOT.

    I've only lost about 8kg but my shoulders have shrunk so much that my UK size 14/US size 12 jacket is now too big around the shoulders. It used to fit me perfectly, but I now drown in it and yes, even the sleeves have become too long.

    Your body WILL change when you lose weight. If you're a woman, you more than likely DO NOT have broad shoulders. The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG.

    Looks like Medline disagrees with you...

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

    Maybe you should get in touch with [takes deep breath] .... Linda J. Vorvick, MD, Medical Director and Director of Didactic Curriculum, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, Department of Family Medicine, UW Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle ... [exhales] and tell her that she's got it all wrong and there are no differences in body frames. I'm sure she'd welcome your input...