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

rainbowbow wrote: »

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.

True to an extent but in that picture, it seems to me that the woman on the left has a smaller bone structure by a long shot... especially if you compare to the one on the right.

Francl27 wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

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.

True to an extent but in that picture, it seems to me that the woman on the left has a smaller bone structure by a long shot... especially if you compare to the one on the right.

my point was that they dont. It's the soft tissue that causes variation.

As you can see by the images in that post, i posted a woman with a "petite" body type and a pear. their bone structure? The same.

I posted someone who is obese and an apple. bone structure? the same

rainbowbow wrote: »

caratayloruk wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

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".

and yet, even if you did. We're talking max a few centemeters in length/weight and a few pounds variation.

To suggest that BMI is therefore worthless, is ridiculous.

I didn't think many people were saying bmi was worthless just that different frame sizes mean that people of the same height can look their best at different points on it

On another thread I said that now I am closer to a healthy weight I was looking at probably stopping my weight loss at the top end of the bmi chart as I had a large frame and think if I went to the lower end I'd look unhealthy. I was flat out told 'you don't have a large frame, you just need to lose weight'' nowhere was I saying I still didn't have weight to lose (I have around 10lb to get to the top of the normal range for Bmi) what I and others are saying is that the reason a range exists in bmi is because of things like frame size

of course.

But the above poster said literally BMI is worthless if you have a "large frame".

As you said, there's a range which accounts for frame size, muscle mass, body fat, etc.. You (i mean people who claim this) aren't a special snowflake who doesn't fit into the BMI chart of body fat % scale simply because you have the belief that your "bones are bigger".

My point time and time again, is that regardless of whether or not your frame *is* actually bigger (which let's be honest, most people who make this claim, it's not) the variation is not SO large that it makes BMI worthless or irrelevant.

Pfft, first you said I implied the BMI was worthless and then you say "above poster said literally BMI is worthless if you have a "large frame"." In fact, what actually I said was "If you have a large frame like me, don't bother looking at the BMI." The OP of that thread has a 26" waist, wears a size 4, and was fretting that if she gained 6 pounds, she'd have a BMI of 25, which is in Overweight.

The only time in my life that I got down to a BMI of 24 was after 6 weeks of military boot camp, during which time I underate and overexercised. I stand by my statement that people built like me need not worry about being in Normal BMI. Low Overweight is good enough for me.

JustMissTracy wrote: »

Does that mean the opposite is also not possible? I've always felt, and been told, that I have a very tiny frame, teenie little bone structure (Tiny wrists, tiny ankles, tiny little clavicle, you get the pic;) When I was fat, I had a tiny frame with lots of fat on top of it.

I was having similar thoughts. I have the opposite problem. The healthy weight range for my height, according to the CDC, is 108-145 pounds. I was at 149 pounds when I broke down crying in a dressing room and decided I *had* to do something about my weight. At 145 pounds I was still considerably overweight. 135? Overweight. 130? Overweight. I'm now at 125 and it would still take me another 5-10 pounds to shed the belly. When I was in my twenties, I weighed about 105. I looked great.

Since my 5" wrists and size 4 fingers look best at the lower end of the BMI chart, I must assume there are women out there who *wouldn't* be overweight at the upper end. Or even in the middle. Since I am already quite muscular, I assume they must have larger frames than mine (or are incredibly muscular!).

ETA: I don't know how tall OP is, but I smiled at her "respectable 60 kgs." I'm sure she looks fantastic, but that weight on my tiny frame would be too much!

rainbowbow wrote: »

Larissa_NY wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

earlnabby 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.

I agree with Larissa_NY. You are not arguing the same points as most of the other people on here are. I've read and re-read all your posts. I stand by Larissa_NY's description of your side of this discussion. And not just because it made me laugh.

Francl27 wrote: »

Mouse_Potato wrote: »

JustMissTracy wrote: »

Does that mean the opposite is also not possible? I've always felt, and been told, that I have a very tiny frame, teenie little bone structure (Tiny wrists, tiny ankles, tiny little clavicle, you get the pic;) When I was fat, I had a tiny frame with lots of fat on top of it.

I was having similar thoughts. I have the opposite problem. The healthy weight range for my height, according to the CDC, is 108-145 pounds. I was at 149 pounds when I broke down crying in a dressing room and decided I *had* to do something about my weight. At 145 pounds I was still considerably overweight. 135? Overweight. 130? Overweight. I'm now at 125 and it would still take me another 5-10 pounds to shed the belly. When I was in my twenties, I weighed about 105. I looked great.

Since my 5" wrists and size 4 fingers look best at the lower end of the BMI chart, I must assume there are women out there who *wouldn't* be overweight at the upper end. Or even in the middle. Since I am already quite muscular, I assume they must have larger frames than mine (or are incredibly muscular!).

ETA: I don't know how tall OP is, but I smiled at her "respectable 60 kgs." I'm sure she looks fantastic, but that weight on my tiny frame would be too much!

Wrist measurement is really not enough to determine someone's frame size though. More 'accurate' tools take elbow size into account too (and possibly other things?).

Either way, yeah, I've seen women who were my size and 15 pounds heavier who looked fantastic.

I measured my elbow. 2.125" from bone to bone (assuming I did it correctly). I think most, if not all, calculators would call me small framed. Amusingly, since I started lifting, I also have the broad shoulder issue - shirts in my size are too tight across the shoulders! That's clearly a deltoid issue, though, not frame or bones.

I'm at the middle of the good BMI for my height, btw, and I certainly don't think I look too thin. Some women may prefer to not have ribs and shoulder bones showing, so they'd add 10 lbs on me, though. I have no problem with healthy-weight bones, so I don't mind it at all.

But my point wasn't about how it affects weight. It's much more likely to affect sizing. I've always worn shirts that are at least 2 sizes bigger to accommodate my shoulders.

And my ribcage is also wide, so hearing of women whose bra band size is much lower than mine always freaks me out, because it shows just how much variability there can be (they sound so tiny!). My ribs are completely visible where the band goes, so expecting that fat has a significant part to play in that (for me) sounds silly. My ribs are 35" at the bra band, so it's not like I'm a freak or something, but there are tons of women on here my height who are significantly more petite, and they wear a much lower band size.

I'll never wear an extra-small, yet many 5'6" women do. That's the kind of variability I mean. Like the table thing, yeah.

ClosetBayesian wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

Larissa_NY wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

earlnabby 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).

Please explain how you can be 5 foot tall without your bones playing a fairly crucial role? Bone length is kind of a thing when it comes to height, I thought?

Bone length is a thing when it comes to proportion too, as is the pattern of surplus fat distribution. Even if the difference in shoulder width is negligible, 5 footer with proportionately long and lean legs, a short waist, and an apple type distribution of surplus fat will not be able to carry as much weight as someone of the same height who has a longer torso and an hourglass figure.

I have broad shoulders and long legs and arms. I've seen a video of when I was 7 or 8 in a ballet recital... Even tho I was a skinny kid, I looked like a baby elephant next to the other ballerina's. They were skinny petite little things, I was skinny but not petite.

ClosetBayesian wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

Larissa_NY wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

earlnabby 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).

Please explain how you can be 5 foot tall without your bones playing a fairly crucial role? Bone length is kind of a thing when it comes to height, I thought?

I'm not sure if you just lack reading comprehension or if you're serious...