You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »But different people are different? This is me 3 pounds away from 'overweight' for my height, BMI wise.
My hip bones are jutting out because *drumroll please* I got wide hips. Some people ain't got wide hips and would, conceivably, not look so pokey at this weight/height.
Sorry, but your weight has to do with your muscle mass and where you gain body fat.
Why do you look that way at that height/weight/bmi? Hint: it has nothing to do with your bones.
Also, i don't see any "jutting". I see normal hips.
I don't believe I mentioned weight but thank you for your assessment of what my weight has to do with. I was speaking strictly to frame size and why on a person with a wider frame will look/be built differently and how such a thing will surely make a difference for weight and build.
But thanks for thinking my hips look normal. It's a nice change vs boney and 'kind of weirdly high'.
0 -
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'll repeat what I said on the other thread where you told me I didn't have a large frame:
Yeah? When I was in the military I had to get my boots and hat from the men's side because the largest women's sizes were too small.
I have to add extensions to bracelets for them to fit around my wrist.
Etc.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »But different people are different? This is me 3 pounds away from 'overweight' for my height, BMI wise.
My hip bones are jutting out because *drumroll please* I got wide hips. Some people ain't got wide hips and would, conceivably, not look so pokey at this weight/height.
Sorry, but your weight has to do with your muscle mass and where you gain body fat.
Why do you look that way at that height/weight/bmi? Hint: it has nothing to do with your bones.
Also, i don't see any "jutting". I see normal hips.
I don't believe I mentioned weight but thank you for your assessment of what my weight has to do with. I was speaking strictly to frame size and why on a person with a wider frame will look/be built differently and how such a thing will surely make a difference for weight and build.
But thanks for thinking my hips look normal. It's a nice change vs boney and 'kind of weirdly high'.
my point was that it isn't your bones that are determining your body shape.
its muscle and fat that determine that.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »But different people are different? This is me 3 pounds away from 'overweight' for my height, BMI wise.
My hip bones are jutting out because *drumroll please* I got wide hips. Some people ain't got wide hips and would, conceivably, not look so pokey at this weight/height.
Sorry, but your weight has to do with your muscle mass and where you gain body fat.
Why do you look that way at that height/weight/bmi? Hint: it has nothing to do with your bones.
Also, i don't see any "jutting". I see normal hips.
I don't believe I mentioned weight but thank you for your assessment of what my weight has to do with. I was speaking strictly to frame size and why on a person with a wider frame will look/be built differently and how such a thing will surely make a difference for weight and build.
But thanks for thinking my hips look normal. It's a nice change vs boney and 'kind of weirdly high'.
daiako you are so pretty. thanks for sharing. bmi is silly sometimes
0 -
kshama2001 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'll repeat what I said on the other thread where you told me I didn't have a large frame:
Yeah? When I was in the military I had to get my boots and hat from the men's side because the largest women's sizes were too small.
I have to add extensions to bracelets for them to fit around my wrist.
Etc.
Exactly, I think we are able to make judgment of our own bodies. Even when I was slim I had to get bracelet extenders! It's your body, of course you know it better than anyone else0 -
kshama2001 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'll repeat what I said on the other thread where you told me I didn't have a large frame:
Yeah? When I was in the military I had to get my boots and hat from the men's side because the largest women's sizes were too small.
I have to add extensions to bracelets for them to fit around my wrist.
Etc.
Exactly, I think we are able to make judgment of our own bodies. Even when I was slim I had to get bracelet extenders! It's your body, of course you know it better than anyone else
I agree. Yes, there is a line between using it as an excuse to carry extra weight and being realistic but we each know our bodies.0 -
to the OP's point, people point to being "big boned" in a lot of instances as an excuse to carry extra weight and say it is OK. In my case i am small/medium boned (wide hips but small wrists) - no excuse - my joke is that I am really supposed to be thin and willowy :-p
0 -
Lose2Cruise2016 wrote: »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.
Mom's wrists are considerably smaller than mine and she has osteoporosis and low bone density. I'm terrified of her falling off a ladder. (She's extremely active for a 78 year old and I have yet to be able to convince her it's time to let someone else clean gutters, etc.)
My maternal grandfather was in his 80s when he fell and broke a bone, which led to his death.
My fiance's 89 year old mother falls a few times a month (NOT from ladders, lol - her proprioception is terrible) and has yet to injure herself.0 -
kshama2001 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'll repeat what I said on the other thread where you told me I didn't have a large frame:
Yeah? When I was in the military I had to get my boots and hat from the men's side because the largest women's sizes were too small.
I have to add extensions to bracelets for them to fit around my wrist.
Etc.
Exactly, I think we are able to make judgment of our own bodies. Even when I was slim I had to get bracelet extenders! It's your body, of course you know it better than anyone else
I agree. Yes, there is a line between using it as an excuse to carry extra weight and being realistic but we each know our bodies.
Yep. I get that some might use it as an excuse sometimes but really you know if it's bs when there's a big loose wobble under their t shirt and not a sign of a bone or joint
0 -
I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
3 -
That's lovely, those women all have similar skeletons. Me, rabbit and kshama2001 are likely very different in bone structure to someone like onedimsim. No excuses, I am fat, I have a lot of body fat that I carry round my tummy. That's not my bone structure, that's my fat. When I was slimmer I had very little fat but still big wrists, head and shoulders.... The bony bits, not the soft bits0
-
That's lovely, those women all have similar skeletons. Me, rabbit and kshama2001 are likely very different in bone structure to someone like onedimsim. No excuses, I am fat, I have a lot of body fat that I carry round my tummy. That's not my bone structure, that's my fat. When I was slimmer I had very little fat but still big wrists, head and shoulders.... The bony bits, not the soft bits
My point is that weight wise, it's your soft tissue that causes such variations. Even if you have a difference in frame size (compared to people of the same height) the difference in weight is so minimal it's not worth accounting for.
Even if you have a "large" frame size with maximal bone density, we are talking VERY small variations in total weight.
I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition. The variation we see in these people who are so called "big boned" (but not ACTUALLY big boned by being significantly taller/larger/giant, etc. aka people of Normal height) are a result of body SHAPE. This is not only fat but also muscle mass.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »I have a large frame too. Big hands and feet are a simple sign!!
It's more complicated than that. You can have bigger hands/feet, but smaller pelvis or other skeletal parts.
At 5'5", I have giant paws, require a size 10 ring (usually have to buy men's), a big head (literally - 7.5 or bigger hat size - and maybe figuratively, too), good-sized feet (9.5 or so), and broad shoulders (nothing smaller than a large fits the shoulders).
Just fat? Mmm, not so much, I think: BMI 20.3, weight 122 pounds. I'm still wearing the size 6 jeans, but I think size 4 would fit (I can put both giant fists inside the 6 without strain). Just crazy thin? Not that, either, I'd say. Built like a boy: Broad shoulders, narrow-ish hips (35"), no booty by nature despite being fairly strong, no breasts (post-mastectomy, not that that's skeletal).
IMO, that's why the BMI ranges have to be so wide. You can mix a bunch of different skeletal details on any given human body, and that will influence what weight looks and feels best (along with muscularity, where fat is carried, and personal preference). Even then, BMI has outliers. "Big boned" can be an excuse for some overweight people, but isn't necessarily an excuse (i.e., an incorrect explanation) for variations in healthy weight.
For me, 122 is not fathomable. I'm also 5'5.
I think I was 140-145 in this pic (barely within healthy BMI). I didn't have a scale that day and some of it as dehydration. I also will never be a size 6 pant.
Thank you so much for posting this pic. I'm 5'4" 1/2 and have wondered what my goal weight should be. I'm around 170 now, and originally had the goal of 135, but the more I lost weight the more extreme that goal seemed. I work out quite a bit and carry a lot of muscle, especially in my legs. It looks like you are very healthy and carry a decent amount of muscle as well. 140-145 will be my new goal! Thanks!0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This is a genuine query: why would a bigger frame mean more fat/weight, outside of a small variance? Like, I can buy that some frames may be wider than others (I sure seem to have one narrower than most, if my hip measurements are anything to go by, so I can believe the opposite to be true), but I don't understand why that would translate to a significant variance in ideal body weight.
Just like muscle, bigger and denser bones contribute to weight, where one could be considered overweight by BMI standards when they aren't. The opposite is true for people with smaller than average bones. The BMI was actually modified for South Asians because, by the way of genetics, many of them could appear to be underweight by BMI standards when they aren't and can be considered overweight (with increased health risks) at a lower BMI than the average person.
When I lived in Okinawa, I was at a healthy weight for me yet could not fit into any of the women's clothes sold off base. My current goal weight is about 10 pounds higher than what I was then - I'm 30 years older. I'd still be in Overweight on the BMI chart, and that's fine with me.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164624/
...It is well known that ethnic groups differ in frame size and in relative leg length (relative sitting height) and that this has an impact on BMI [3], [11], [48], [50]–[52].1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
I agree with this
But my contention is larger frame sizes suit higher levels of musculature / body fat than smaller frame sizes and there is a relationship, which may well be further confounded by how / where you genetically carry weight (fat)0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »That's lovely, those women all have similar skeletons. Me, rabbit and kshama2001 are likely very different in bone structure to someone like onedimsim. No excuses, I am fat, I have a lot of body fat that I carry round my tummy. That's not my bone structure, that's my fat. When I was slimmer I had very little fat but still big wrists, head and shoulders.... The bony bits, not the soft bits
My point is that weight wise, it's your soft tissue that causes such variations. Even if you have a difference in frame size (compared to people of the same height) the difference in weight is so minimal it's not worth accounting for.
Even if you have a "large" frame size with maximal bone density, we are talking VERY small variations in total weight.
I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition. The variation we see in these people who are so called "big boned" (but not ACTUALLY big boned by being significantly taller/larger/giant, etc. aka people of Normal height) are a result of body SHAPE. This is not only fat but also muscle mass.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
Do you dispute that women with large frames can be at healthy weights at the very top of Normal in the BMI chart or even slightly into Overweight?1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
My point also.rainbowbow wrote: »For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Prove it. Show us scans that give actual bone length measurementsrainbowbow wrote: »Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
Wider frames require more weight to not look "bony". The difference isn't a lot, but is definitely there. That is why things like BMI give a range of ideal weights for a height, not one number. If everyone had the same frame size, everyone would look best at the same weight.rainbowbow wrote: »
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
[/i]
Yes, we get that.rainbowbow wrote: »
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Agreed that SHAPE has little to do with bones. SIZE has everything to do with bones, and by size I mean height AND width, just not height. Two people who are 5'6", have a pear shape, and weigh 140 lb will still look best at a different weight if one has wider shoulders and hips and longer arms and legs than the other.2 -
-
kshama2001 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »That's lovely, those women all have similar skeletons. Me, rabbit and kshama2001 are likely very different in bone structure to someone like onedimsim. No excuses, I am fat, I have a lot of body fat that I carry round my tummy. That's not my bone structure, that's my fat. When I was slimmer I had very little fat but still big wrists, head and shoulders.... The bony bits, not the soft bits
My point is that weight wise, it's your soft tissue that causes such variations. Even if you have a difference in frame size (compared to people of the same height) the difference in weight is so minimal it's not worth accounting for.
Even if you have a "large" frame size with maximal bone density, we are talking VERY small variations in total weight.
I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition. The variation we see in these people who are so called "big boned" (but not ACTUALLY big boned by being significantly taller/larger/giant, etc. aka people of Normal height) are a result of body SHAPE. This is not only fat but also muscle mass.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
Do you dispute that women with large frames can be at healthy weights at the very top of Normal in the BMI chart or even slightly into Overweight?
That's hard to say... If they were, i'd say they are most definitely the exception. I would be very surprised.
The likelihood of that happening is not very high, especially considering a normal BMI usually ranges between 30-40 pounds (and a small frame vs a large frame at the same height, as i stated, is a difference of MAX 10-15 pounds of WEIGHT difference).
If someone who you are insisting has a large frame falls into this category where BMI is *wrong* i'd say it's more likely that it's due to a higher percentage of muscle mass for their size. in this case, switching to another method such as measuring body fat would be applicable.
Again, the likelihood that your bones is skewing it to the point of pushing you into the other category? Not likely. Unless you would already be in the mid-range/high range of the normal category based on your current body composition.1 -
1
-
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"7 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
Thank you for putting
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
Thank you for putting this so much better than I could before finishing my morning caffeine, less thanks for making me inhale Diet Coke while laughing.2 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
You hit the nail on the head!1 -
What? You're asking me to find dexa scans, of people, of the same height, which shows how long their specific bones are, based on what? The fact that you think people of the same height have huge variations in bone size and may be "wider" or look "bonier" that others?rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Prove it. Show us scans that give actual bone length measurements
This is an unreasonable request and i don't have time to do so. The size of your bones determines things like height/breadth. The difference is not and cannot be too big or you would be a completely different size (height) than others.
A common understanding of evolutionary biology should give you allow enough understanding that if you find bones of a human being, they are going to be a certain size. The variations you're talking about here are like inter-species variations.
In humans, we commonly measure things like leg length and it's relation to height to see the variations in bone length/total height. but even there, we can see the results show LITTLE variation. We're talking up to a few centimeters.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2872302/#b45-ijerph-07-01047
"Even if specific genotypes are discovered, their direct contribution to normal ethnic (so-called “racial”) variation in human body shape may be relatively small. At 40 weeks gestation, fetuses identified as African-Americans have, on average, relatively longer legs than fetuses identified as European-Americans [23]. But the difference, as measured by (total length/crown-rump length) is less than 1%."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720514/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720514/figure/F1/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24401935
People of the same height simply don't have the variation you are implying.1 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Re-read what i've said and hopefully that helps.
Body frame/height/width/etc of bones is not that different for people of a similar height.
edit: i feel like you and the others who have agreed with your post are not grasping what i'm saying. you cannot be 5 foot tall and 3 feet wide because of your bones. It doesn't work that way.
My point is that the variation in length and size of bones with people of a relative height is almost negligible. especially when it comes to total body weight (as stated).1 -
booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions