You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Options
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.0 -
SacredCaramel wrote: »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.
BMI chart does not apply to athletes. For the average person who does not spend a good amount of time exercising, it shows a pretty accurate range
This.
Unless @aggelikik is a long time lifter or has a very physical job he/she is fooling themselves.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.0 -
1. I agree with @rainbowbow that there aren’t usually giant differences in how broad people are
Assuming shoulder (biacromial) breadth is an ok proxy for “frame” size, based on a study of Americans between 1988 and 1994:
(a) 90% of men 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 37.3cm and 45.0cm, with an average of 41.1cm;
(b) 90% of women 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 33.4cm and 40.3cm, with an average of 36.7cm.
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.pdf)
Basically, you would expect 9 out of 10 women to have shoulders that were within 3.5cm of the average.
2. On average, broader shoulders don’t correlate with carrying lots more muscle
A 2002 American study found a positive correlation between shoulder breadth and fat free mass in women, with an increase in shoulder breadth of 1cm explaining an increase in fat free mass of 0.42kg.
(http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/6/1012.full#ref-6)
3. None of this matters
You weigh what you weigh. If it looks good on you and it’s healthy then who gives a *kitten* if you “have a big frame” or if you just “carry more muscle than the average person”. It’s just semantics.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.
Not only is that not what she said, that is not what she has implied throughout the thread.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.
Not only is that not what she said, that is not what she has implied throughout the thread.
"you cannot be 5 foot tall and 3 feet wide because of your bones." - uh, yes it is.1 -
If I had time I'll grab some popcorn. Interesting thread. Personally, my experience from a few years ago. Sorry if it is a bit of a "waffle". Briefly - discussion with doctor. March 2011, Doctor says "Gary, you are pre-diabetic, lose weight... get down to 90kg". I started at over 130kg (over 287lb). Dec 2011 visit same Doctor, I say "I'm now 96kg, have joined a gym to help lose the last 6kg. Problem is if I stick to my current plan I get dizzy, etc and need to eat 3000 calories for a few days to stop this happening.... etc. etc. But you said I need to get to 90kg ...". Doctor then says "96kg should be fine, you probably just have BIG BONES". Yep. He said it. By the way, my wrist is very thin, or my fingers too long lol - thumb and finger go around wrist and overlap. Now I just need the same to happen to my waist lol (get smaller).0
-
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.
Not only is that not what she said, that is not what she has implied throughout the thread.
That's exactly what I've said numerous times. Even in the post you quoted... I really don't know what it is you think I've been saying...
"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)."
If we compare two people with the same height they aren't going to have a huge difference in bone length or width.
I stated this and then a few people said something along the lines of "okay, maybe not in height or bone length, but what about in width? Like ribs/collar bones/shoulder width". My response to that is:
If someone is insanely "wide" or "broad" it's because of their fat or muscle or other soft tissue. Not their bones.
No matter how you frame it, if two people are the same height and one has a quote "small frame" and one has a quote "large frame" they are STILL going to have a similar size body frame. One is not going to have significantly longer OR wider bones.
I hope this helps you.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.
Not only is that not what she said, that is not what she has implied throughout the thread.
That's exactly what I've said numerous times. Even in the post you quoted... I really don't know what it is you think I've been saying...
"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)."
If we compare two people with the same height they aren't going to have a huge difference in bone length or width.
I stated this and then a few people said something along the lines of "okay, maybe not in height or bone length, but what about in width? Like ribs/collar bones/shoulder width". My response to that is:
If someone is insanely "wide" or "broad" it's because of their fat or muscle or other soft tissue. Not their bones.
No matter how you frame it, if two people are the same height and one has a quote "small frame" and one has a quote "large frame" they are STILL going to have a similar size body frame. One is not going to have significantly longer OR wider bones.
I hope this helps you.
Just gonna jump in on this with a slight sob story but I'm trying to prove a point. My little sister is currently 5'11", I am currently 5'8", we were both around 5'7" together at the same time.
My smallest, being a skeleton, was 145-135, she was 100 pounds if soaking wet. (At 5'11 she is now 125 but that's just how she is despite having a much unhealthier diet than I ever did.)
My bones were protruding out my body though, I was anorexic and bulemic, didn't eat at all and if I did I immediately threw it up. Even then I was heavier than her who was healthy and basically was super model material naturally (and ate and still eats whatever she wanted).
My ribcage was expanded more than hers, my hips were wider even when you could see the bones sticking out.
I'm putting a lot of stress on the fact that you could see my bones sticking out of my body. I had little fat percentage on me. I was extremely unhealthy. Even then I weighed more than my sister who is only 2-3 (2.5ish) years younger.
My bones were wider though than hers even then. We would compare wrist circumference and mine was always bigger. I can't remember my fat percentage then at all. My hips were obviously still wider when we compared (which in hindsight probably didn't help because it just made me starve myself and abuse myself more). My ribcage was obviously still wider. It's not even the fat because what fat was there when you are starving yourself?
So I'm saying that yes, there are different body size frames. From first hand experience I know there is. She is of a tinier one, petite. I will never be a size 0. Even when I had those problems of mine I was never a size 0 (I think I was a size 4-5). She was naturally a size 0 despite us, at that time, being the same height. Despite you being able to count my ribcage and see my hip bones protruding and my collar bone being very definite.
So once again yes, there are different body size frames.0 -
ArcticSero wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.
Not only is that not what she said, that is not what she has implied throughout the thread.
That's exactly what I've said numerous times. Even in the post you quoted... I really don't know what it is you think I've been saying...
"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)."
If we compare two people with the same height they aren't going to have a huge difference in bone length or width.
I stated this and then a few people said something along the lines of "okay, maybe not in height or bone length, but what about in width? Like ribs/collar bones/shoulder width". My response to that is:
If someone is insanely "wide" or "broad" it's because of their fat or muscle or other soft tissue. Not their bones.
No matter how you frame it, if two people are the same height and one has a quote "small frame" and one has a quote "large frame" they are STILL going to have a similar size body frame. One is not going to have significantly longer OR wider bones.
I hope this helps you.
Just gonna jump in on this with a slight sob story but I'm trying to prove a point. My little sister is currently 5'11", I am currently 5'8", we were both around 5'7" together at the same time.
My smallest, being a skeleton, was 145-135, she was 100 pounds if soaking wet. (At 5'11 she is now 125 but that's just how she is despite having a much unhealthier diet than I ever did.)
My bones were protruding out my body though, I was anorexic and bulemic, didn't eat at all and if I did I immediately threw it up. Even then I was heavier than her who was healthy and basically was super model material naturally (and ate and still eats whatever she wanted).
My ribcage was expanded more than hers, my hips were wider even when you could see the bones sticking out.
I'm putting a lot of stress on the fact that you could see my bones sticking out of my body. I had little fat percentage on me. I was extremely unhealthy. Even then I weighed more than my sister who is only 2-3 (2.5ish) years younger.
My bones were wider though than hers even then. We would compare wrist circumference and mine was always bigger. I can't remember my fat percentage then at all. My hips were obviously still wider when we compared (which in hindsight probably didn't help because it just made me starve myself and abuse myself more). My ribcage was obviously still wider. It's not even the fat because what fat was there when you are starving yourself?
So I'm saying that yes, there are different body size frames. From first hand experience I know there is. She is of a tinier one, petite. I will never be a size 0. Even when I had those problems of mine I was never a size 0 (I think I was a size 4-5). She was naturally a size 0 despite us, at that time, being the same height. Despite you being able to count my ribcage and see my hip bones protruding and my collar bone being very definite.
So once again yes, there are different body size frames.
Sorry for the double post as it won't let me edit my original one.
Going to quickly add in that body frames don't affect how you lose weight, just what weight is healthy/unhealthy for you. One person may need to be 125 and another may need to be 150. Either way no one will lose weight slower than the other just because of how their body frames are, but there are different sizes/widths.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »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).
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...
I'm serious. The post I quoted (yours!) said that "you cannot be five feet tall and three feet wide because of your bones." I would like you to explain how bones do not relate to a person being five feet tall, as that idea runs counter to my understanding of human physiology.
I think you're missing the "five feet tall and three feet wide" thing. She means that that combination of measurements is unlikely to be due to bones and a 5 foot person who was 3 feet wide would be so due to fat/muscle mass rather than bone structure.
Not only is that not what she said, that is not what she has implied throughout the thread.
That's exactly what I've said numerous times. Even in the post you quoted... I really don't know what it is you think I've been saying...
"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)."
If we compare two people with the same height they aren't going to have a huge difference in bone length or width.
I stated this and then a few people said something along the lines of "okay, maybe not in height or bone length, but what about in width? Like ribs/collar bones/shoulder width". My response to that is:
If someone is insanely "wide" or "broad" it's because of their fat or muscle or other soft tissue. Not their bones.
No matter how you frame it, if two people are the same height and one has a quote "small frame" and one has a quote "large frame" they are STILL going to have a similar size body frame. One is not going to have significantly longer OR wider bones.
I hope this helps you.
While the relative length and/or density might be the same, someone with "broad shoulders" will have more space between those shoulders to fill than someone who is more narrow up top. The stuff that fills up that space isn't weightless. So while the bones themselves may not contribute much in terms of overall weight, there's a filling-up-space aspect to frame size which bears consideration. I'm with you as far as someone who is morbidly obese shouldn't blame a lack of weight loss on frame structure (someone have a Cartman GIF?); however, I would suggest that "frame" is why people who are the same height have different ideal weights. It's not because of the weight or density of the bones themselves, but more a matter of how weight is distributed.0 -
It depends on what you consider significant. The lowest weight I've been at 5'6" was after losing muscle and fat during an extended illness: down to 85 lbs. I still wore a size 12 shirt, because of shoulders, but they looked blousy everywhere but the top. My bra cup size reduced by several sizes, but the band size was the same (I started out thin then). My pants size only went from a 7/8 to a 5/6, but my legs (thighs and below) no longer filled anything out.
I did look skeletal; I usually weighed 128. But plenty of women don't look skeletal at all when they wear a size 5 at 5'6". Most models wear smaller than that, and they are much taller. They can get into size zeroes and stuff. It's freaky (or makes complete sense, depending on how you look at it).
0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »It depends on what you consider significant. The lowest weight I've been at 5'6" was after losing muscle and fat during an extended illness: down to 85 lbs. I still wore a size 12 shirt, because of shoulders, but they looked blousy everywhere but the top. My bra cup size reduced by several sizes, but the band size was the same (I started out thin then). My pants size only went from a 7/8 to a 5/6, but my legs (thighs and below) no longer filled anything out.
I did look skeletal; I usually weighed 128. But plenty of women don't look skeletal at all when they wear a size 5 at 5'6". Most models wear smaller than that, and they are much taller. They can get into size zeroes and stuff. It's freaky (or makes complete sense, depending on how you look at it).
I'm 5'6, and I look great at 150; I'd look like something out of The Walking Dead at 127.0 -
I'm 5"8 and 142lbs would be the absolute lowest of low I could go without looking too skinny/sickly.0
-
ClosetBayesian wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »It depends on what you consider significant. The lowest weight I've been at 5'6" was after losing muscle and fat during an extended illness: down to 85 lbs. I still wore a size 12 shirt, because of shoulders, but they looked blousy everywhere but the top. My bra cup size reduced by several sizes, but the band size was the same (I started out thin then). My pants size only went from a 7/8 to a 5/6, but my legs (thighs and below) no longer filled anything out.
I did look skeletal; I usually weighed 128. But plenty of women don't look skeletal at all when they wear a size 5 at 5'6". Most models wear smaller than that, and they are much taller. They can get into size zeroes and stuff. It's freaky (or makes complete sense, depending on how you look at it).
I'm 5'6, and I look great at 150; I'd look like something out of The Walking Dead at 127.
Imagine 85!!! That was just awful.
But as a now-middle-aged woman, I sit at 133 (in my avi, too). It's lighter than I expected considering my frame, but my limbs are all just quite long and thinning as they go. I'm only wide and sturdy in my short torso
Still, I could use more muscle. Working on it!
0 -
I've read the first and last pages so far.
Subscribing with this question:
I've read that bone size is very similar between people.
That's not to mean that people's height and dimensions are different.
There's a difference between "big-boned" and "large frame" and "heavy bone density".
I'm tall, and relatively well-proportioned, but I don't think my bones are anything special.
I think the OP was saying people use "big-boned" as an excuse for being overweight when they're actually tall, or have odd proportions, when in actual fact their bones are just like everyone else's and they could be a normal BMI.0 -
-
Have to agree with a lot of people here. I think the OP meant that people are using 'big boned' as an excuse for not being a healthy weight.
I'm a woman, 6'2" with not a single bit of fat on my 7.5"-circumference wrists. I'm at least 50lbs overweight, sure, but I hold all that in my back, hips, and abs. ALL of it). I have size UK 10 feet, and what can only be described as 'man hands'.
My friend is a few inches shorter than me, and weighs 100lbs less. But it looks right, because she only has size UK 7 feet, dainty 5" wrists, etc etc. If I were to reach her weight, I'd look skeletal. I know this because I WAS that weight a long while back.
Being big boned exists, as so many people here have pointed out. But it's not an excuse for being fat.
0 -
1. I agree with @rainbowbow that there aren’t usually giant differences in how broad people are
Assuming shoulder (biacromial) breadth is an ok proxy for “frame” size, based on a study of Americans between 1988 and 1994:
(a) 90% of men 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 37.3cm and 45.0cm, with an average of 41.1cm;
(b) 90% of women 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 33.4cm and 40.3cm, with an average of 36.7cm.
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.pdf)
Basically, you would expect 9 out of 10 women to have shoulders that were within 3.5cm of the average.
2. On average, broader shoulders don’t correlate with carrying lots more muscle
A 2002 American study found a positive correlation between shoulder breadth and fat free mass in women, with an increase in shoulder breadth of 1cm explaining an increase in fat free mass of 0.42kg.
(http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/6/1012.full#ref-6)
3. None of this matters
You weigh what you weigh. If it looks good on you and it’s healthy then who gives a *kitten* if you “have a big frame” or if you just “carry more muscle than the average person”. It’s just semantics.
Perfect reply.
0 -
Have to agree with a lot of people here. I think the OP meant that people are using 'big boned' as an excuse for not being a healthy weight.
I'm a woman, 6'2" with not a single bit of fat on my 7.5"-circumference wrists. I'm at least 50lbs overweight, sure, but I hold all that in my back, hips, and abs. ALL of it). I have size UK 10 feet, and what can only be described as 'man hands'.
My friend is a few inches shorter than me, and weighs 100lbs less. But it looks right, because she only has size UK 7 feet, dainty 5" wrists, etc etc. If I were to reach her weight, I'd look skeletal. I know this because I WAS that weight a long while back.
Being big boned exists, as so many people here have pointed out. But it's not an excuse for being fat.
To be fair, the OP posted in a couple of threads where people mentioned having a large frame or being big boned but not as an excuse for being overweight but for being on the higher end of the BMI scale.
So some people in this thread may be interpreting this thread differently.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K 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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions