You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Options
Replies
-
And musculature (or fat) can give a very different impression of someone's "frame size".
Look at Frank Zane for example.
Looks really buff because he is really buff. Looks really wide, broad shouldered too, right?
I once overlaid a picture of me over this, adjusting the size to be equal and guess what, his shoulder width to head ratio is almost identical to little ol' me. The muscle definition and the way he's posing makes it look broader.
A friend of mine does somehow have a much flatter ribcage than me, also making him look broader, even though our shoulder widths, again, are almost identical. Optical illusions are a hell of a drug.0 -
6'1, 8" wrist...yeah, I am obviously built the same way as every other male who is 6'1. Even my fingers look like corncobs.
But hey, why listen to doctors when someone on the internet tells me it is all untrue?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »And musculature (or fat) can give a very different impression of someone's "frame size".
Look at Frank Zane for example.
Aaaaall day long.....;-)0 -
So, I guess the Mayo Clinic's findings that women (and men) with smaller frame sizes are at greater risk for osteoporosis is a fake ... because how could a highly regarded medical research institute do a study on the effects of frame size differences if they don't exist? And the Fels Longitudinal Study, used to investigate FIVE different frame reference points - bicristal, elbow, knee, biacromial, and wrist breadths - and those relations to measures of total body fat, fat-free mass, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density? Scrap that one too since "no one" has a bigger frame or bigger/heavier/denser bones than anyone else.
It's one thing to discourage the idea/excuse of 'I'm not fat, I'm big-boned", of course. But to say frame size differences are not a real thing? And then rage-quit the thread because science? Well, alrighty then.2 -
I think the phrases "big boned" or "big framed" are a more PC way to say someone is overweight or fat. I have 54" shoulders now at 200 pounds but at 300 pounds my shoulders were closer to 60". I think as we lose weight, we will be shocked at the proportions are bodies were actual MEANT to be. The way we see ourselves or what we have come to see as "normal" will astound us when we lose the excess fat we were not designed to carry.3
-
LOL, my size 10 feet didn't get smaller when I got down to my weight goal.3
-
I think the phrases "big boned" or "big framed" are a more PC way to say someone is overweight or fat. I have 54" shoulders now at 200 pounds but at 300 pounds my shoulders were closer to 60". I think as we lose weight, we will be shocked at the proportions are bodies were actual MEANT to be. The way we see ourselves or what we have come to see as "normal" will astound us when we lose the excess fat we were not designed to carry.
I agree, which is why I have never used the term to describe my frame. Yes, my bones are longer than many others of my same height. It has nothing to do with how fat I am or why I am fat.0 -
I think the phrases "big boned" or "big framed" are a more PC way to say someone is overweight or fat. I have 54" shoulders now at 200 pounds but at 300 pounds my shoulders were closer to 60". I think as we lose weight, we will be shocked at the proportions are bodies were actual MEANT to be. The way we see ourselves or what we have come to see as "normal" will astound us when we lose the excess fat we were not designed to carry.
Agreed. It can be a bit surprising how much our bodies change when we lose weight, particularly the first time around. As for the photos, anyone who has been through a cut knows that a photograph at the end of a cut makes shoulders look huge even though the same shoulders are smaller than at the end of a bulk. It's a matter of changing the proportion between the shoulders and waist.
This isn't to say that there isn't natural human variation, but for some reason I rarely hear fit people talking about how "big boned" they are, except on MFP when they're getting busy missing a point . . .
0 -
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. : (
I have a dinky head, hands, feet, fingers. Basically if it weren't for my hips I would be a child. My eleven yr old niece and brother both have hands way bigger than mine and I can wear my friend's toddler's hats with it barely squeezing my head. So I know I have a small frame. I just got fat.0 -
In the context that someone is using those as an excuse to why they are over weight, yes, I agree. They are not overweight because they have big bones. It was not an excuse for me. Penn Jillette will be on an upcoming Oz segment talking about his recent weight loss and he talks about how he never thought he was fat because of his height. He's 6'7", so his weight never was something he was concerned with because he was just a "Big guy."
I am only 5'1" but I have wide hips and narrow shoulders. I have a friend who's an inch taller than me and she has tiny hips. I'm jealous.0 -
In terms of using it as a reason for being overweight I agree to an extent (I always said I was fat, I was never under any illusion about that) However the fact remains that there are different frame sizes and shapes. At my heaviest I still had broad shoulders and 68lb later I still have them. Are they smaller? Yes as they have less fat around them but they are still broad. So even when I was fat I still had a large frame I just had a lot of excess fat on it too. I0
-
yeah, I actually do.1
-
I have a large frame. Not shoulders - my shoulders are distinctly average - but I am of very stocky build, with short limbs. My back is very long, so when I'm sitting down, I'm easily as tall as most 6 ft men, and I'm a 5 foot 5 woman. So of course I'm built to be heavier than someone who is long limbed. That's why my aim is to get to the top of the healthy BMI range for my height, I really don't need to go much lower.1
-
Yes you can be big boned. No you can't just say you're large framed to get out of losing weight.
Op, why you even bothered to bring this up, aside from my inclination to believe it was to start ****, is completely beyond me. Bone density, size, and frame size differ across all human beings. Some people who are fat claim they are not fat, but just large framed, to assuage their pain and suffering while they are fat. And that's none of your business. This is Kindergarten stuff.
If you're not starting **** and you really don't think people have different frame sizes or that women can have big broad shoulders, I URGE you to make some friends of northern European descent. You need more exposure to the world if you think women are all petite and whatnot when we're skinny.
ETA: -Love, a gigantic pelvis-bearing, broad shouldered (for my size anyway) woman2 -
I think the point the OP is trying to make is that some perpetually fat people use the "big bones" excuse to cover up for a lazy attitude towards weight loss.
I remember a hilarious conversation with an orthopaedic surgeon. He would try to get patients down to a suitable weight before he would give the green light for knee replacement surgery. Some of the patients would come out with the big bones statement. When the surgery finally took place, these people were not the largest bone diameter, but below average or even the smallest.1 -
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.
Actually, people do vary in frame size...it is one of the reasons that there is a range with BMI...I'll use my wife and my best friend's wife as examples...they're both 5'3" and neither are fat...my wife has a larger frame and a more athletic body type and weighs in around 125 - 130 and aesthetically, that's about ideal for her...on the other hand, my buddy's wife is very slight of frame and weighs in around 105 - 110 which is about ideal for her...I don't think my wife could even get down to 110 and if she could, she'd look sickly because of her frame...at 130, my buddy's wife would be a little "chunky".
There's a difference between acknowledging that there is indeed differences in frame and using that as an excuse to be fat or confusing fatness with a bigger frame. Like I said, my wife has a bigger frame, but she has a very athletic build and is pretty lean...but still, bigger frame on her.5 -
I have a large frame. I'm 6' tall + a little. It has nothing to do with me being overweight. Football shoulders, 8" wrist even at my ideal weight....how I wish I could wear off the rack clothes without having to go a size or more up and then make alterations and all those beautiful bangles they sell and I never will wear unless I have a jeweler make one for me because i cant even get them over my fingers and the clasp kind that won't close all the way...I also have very wide hips even when at my thinnest. Rings? Hah! always have to get them sized. No ankle bracelets for me.
2 of my daughters are 5'11". One has a large frame like me. One has a small frame lIke their fathers side of the family. Neither are overweight and are actually quite thin. Their weight is 20 lbs different from each other and clothes size is also different from each other.
.
2 -
Eh, it could be true (that a person is big-bone). It's just not always true. People will figure this out on their own as they lose weight.
If it helps some people to focus less on those dumb weight charts then I say it's all good. In the end, it won't really matter what you weigh, but how you look and how much fat you still have.1 -
The BMI chart is completely inaccurate, and doesn't account for Lean Body Mass. According to the BMI, based on my age, gender and height, my "no longer overweight" ideal weight is 165. This is not achievable or sustainable for me, and I will look ridiculously thin. Visiting a dietician who can measure LBM electrostatically will help determine where you need to end up. I carry about 20 extra pounds of bone, muscle, etc. I don't plan on losing that at all.0
-
I have a tiny frame, even when I was obese you could tell that underneath all of that I had a small frame. I fully believe that it's possible to have a large frame as well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions