You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Options
Replies
-
When I read the OP's thoughts on large frames on this and other threads, I imagine an overweight child who tried to use the large frame excuse herself, was told she did not have a large frame, and misinterpreted this to mean that there was no such thing as large frames for anyone, and who does not apply critical thinking to this notion as an adult.
Let's not forget the OP included:
"You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''"
"The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG."1 -
Clearly there is anatomical variation in humans but it isn't usually enough to compensate for someone registering as "obese" or very "overweight" on a BMI scale or any other measure of height/weight ratio--those inaccuracies are more likely related to muscle mass or actually having a lot of excess fat.
No...but you have have a large frame size, a lot of muscle mass (athlete) and a long torso (for example, I am 5'11" with a 28" inseam) it is pretty easy to be in the "overweight" category without carrying much excess body fat.
My proportions are so outside of the norm that I have had problems with surgeries because standard medical instruments do not reach far enough for my body. There ARE huge extremes. The OP's insinuation that these do not exist is extremely insulting.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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.
I have a picture like this. I am the same age as the other girls--four--but I am more than a head taller and I look like I am seven or eight years old. It's kind of hilarious.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.
Interesting. Mine are about 50cm.
I am glad to not have that horrible sloping shoulder/neck thing that you see on many women. Dresses hang very well on wide, straight shoulders. My dance frame is great, in part because I have such straight shoulders.
I am fine with looking the way that I do, but my frame is just plain bigger. It's not an excuse, it's just a reality apart from weight or fat.
0 -
eringurl33 wrote: »Hmm. I have a big head.. Will that shrink as I lose weight? I'd love to be able to buy hats from a normal store!
Also - I'm only being half sarcastic. I really do have a big head. : (
Me too! That's cuz we got extra brains!0 -
I'm 5'11, and my wrists are 8.5 inches. By the way, there's no fat on my wrists. I have always had a problem with bracelets...they just don't fit. OP--your thread makes me laugh.0
-
azulvioleta6 wrote: »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.
Interesting. Mine are about 50cm.
That's really outside the norm, you might not be measuring biacromial breadth the same way they did in the study. Or you might just have broad shoulders, I'm happy either way
0 -
Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »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.
I'm 5'5" and my ribs are 34" at the bra band, so I hear you. I was actually measuring the other day to double check that I was wearing the right size of bra (which I am, yay), and they ask you to measure it loosely there, then tight... it was the same number. Just can't physically tighten it because there's just not much fat left there at all.
Don't sweat it. I don't think 34" is big. I can't remember being below 36" and am wearing 38" now. Since your cup size is the difference between band and bust, and a 34D is the same cup size as a 32DD, I have a theory there are a boat load of women out there wearing band sizes that are too small partly out of some sort of vanity sizing so they can 'have' a bigger sounding cup size. I see people on bra sizing sites talking about how they 'finally' got fit properly in a 32G or something. When chances are they would fit just as well in a 36D and save money not having to shop at specialty places. But maybe I am wrong here. I consider myself to have a large rib cage and am hoping to both lose some band size from fat coming off my back and some bust size as I drop in weight.0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.1 -
Average human proportions as used in anatomy books and human drawing lessons shown to be fairly accurate to reality:
Take your head measurements (without ears so basically your skull).
Body height is 7-8 heads tall.
Average shoulder width is 2.5-3 heads wide.
Hips are ~75% of the shoulders in men. (without skin and tissue that's only 50% but kinda hard only measuring the middle of a bone).
The halfway point of height is in the pelvic region.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Braus_1921_1.png
You can go measure for yourself if you're way off that or not.
Now we've had multiple calculators trying to tell you your frame size. According to those I'd be small framed with my 6 inch circumference.
According to the shoulder width statistics though I'm above average but still in the 90% group. Also compared to the textbook example my torso is a bit longer than average, my arms are a bit shorter and my head is slightly taller than the average textbook size. My shoe size is above average too. So what is it? Are all my other measurements except those two meaningless or are those calculators just not that good?
To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats large enough to fit me...
1 -
Big boned and large frame is meant to compare people of similar height. Otherwise you just say the person is tall.
Big feet don't have anything to do with either. Neither do long fingers. You can have both and be otherwise normally proportioned.
Basically, there are lots of different proportions. The differences in bones given the same height and 'average' LBM aren't enough on their own to catapult people's ideal weights from 'normal' to 'overweight' and above. With high LBM, then technically someone might be close enough to the boundary where having Morton's toe, which might contribute a gram or two, puts them over for crying out loud.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.
Now in the fitness section she's stating that body shapes are also a myth. Apparently everyone the same height looks exactly the same after they lose weight.Body shapes are a myth. Our bodies aren't designed to carry extra weight on our bottom half, eg, which is what the so-called pear shape is. I used to think I am a pear shape, but after an 8kg weight loss, I realise my hips are much narrower than what I thought.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10338532/exercise-for-hourglass-shape#latest
These things she's bringing up are bound to raise a few eyebrows! Nobody is making her bring them up.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
One person that far off of average proportions not a surprise. 50% of the thread that far off, a surprise. Statistics.
Not that this population would be biased to think that they're bigger proportioned than average.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
Are your feet and head proportional to your height or not though? That's the question with frame size. That bigger people have bigger bones is obvious. Now a 5' woman with broader shoulders than a 6' guy that would unquestionably be a big frame. or small frame on the guy.
Also I didn't say you're all delusional, just that there's more people saying they're far off than there should be statistically.
Ya, I'm starting to feel both like as a freak and not alone
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.
I'm 5'6.5" so not tall for a woman my age from the US.1 -
blues4miles wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »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.
I'm 5'5" and my ribs are 34" at the bra band, so I hear you. I was actually measuring the other day to double check that I was wearing the right size of bra (which I am, yay), and they ask you to measure it loosely there, then tight... it was the same number. Just can't physically tighten it because there's just not much fat left there at all.
Don't sweat it. I don't think 34" is big. I can't remember being below 36" and am wearing 38" now. Since your cup size is the difference between band and bust, and a 34D is the same cup size as a 32DD, I have a theory there are a boat load of women out there wearing band sizes that are too small partly out of some sort of vanity sizing so they can 'have' a bigger sounding cup size. I see people on bra sizing sites talking about how they 'finally' got fit properly in a 32G or something. When chances are they would fit just as well in a 36D and save money not having to shop at specialty places. But maybe I am wrong here. I consider myself to have a large rib cage and am hoping to both lose some band size from fat coming off my back and some bust size as I drop in weight.
Uh, what? Yes, in the example you gave the actual breasts would fit fine in the cup part, yes, but the band would be huge and offer no support. If the straps are what are holding up the bra instead of the band, the band is too big, period. I used to fit bras for a living and it's much, much, much more common for women to be wearing bands too large than too small in order to fit in the limited range of "standard sizes" available at your average shop.
I had chronic back pain from the time I was thirteen or so from wearing a band that was too big even though the cups fit. My ribcage is narrow, 27 inches, and now that I order 28Fs instead of trying to wear 34DD from VS or a department store or whatever, I am totally pain-free and my clothes all fit right, I cannot believe the difference. (ETA: my chest isn't especially large, either - once you do the correct sizing thing you learn that the letter is only relevant relative to the band size and isn't really an indicator of the absolute size, so it's easier to accept. My bust measurement is only a bit under 33 inches.)
Sorry for the tangent but I feel strongly about this one, I hate that so many women are living with pain and discomfort and weird back fat rolls and stuff when a bra that fits right can eliminate all of that. It was honestly life-changing for me to finally be comfortable and go about my day without ever having to adjust or even notice my bra at all because it's so comfortable and my back feels great.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Some of the responses here make my head hurt. Lemme go get some fresh air.
Don't worry I know what your saying.....this is MFP and it's a place that no matter what you say people will try and put you down! They search the boards to find something to jump on!!
Congratulations on your weight loss you are awesome!
When I was a big girl my nan used to say "don't worry your just big boned" to try and stop the hurtful things people called me from hurting me too much...to make me feel like it wasn't my fault! I know different now but I used that excuse for a long time x
She's telling those of us with demonstrably large frames that we are delusional and you are ok with this? Alrighty then.
She isn't saying you're delusional for believing your frame is larger than the average. The problem is if you believe that it really makes a large change in body weight. Most of the differences in actual weight of the skeleton don't have to do with the skeleton's frame size, but the actual mineral density of the bones themselves. Most bone mineral content only changes to be less from malnutrition, or if it is above average from some form of resistance training, possibly the resistance of a heavy body in the obese.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...To be honest, the amount of people here saying how freakishly off they are from the average proportions reminds me of the many people saying they have a high/slow metabolism on facebook/9gag/etc. posts about weight loss. Far more than statistically likely so I'm inclined to believe at least some are from their own perception and/or measurement error.
I guess the USAF was also measuring wrong when it failed to supply boots and hats in my size...
One person that far off of average proportions not a surprise. 50% of the thread that far off, a surprise. Statistics.
Not that this population would be biased to think that they're bigger proportioned than average.
It's not just thinking. We have problems shopping. Especially telling is not being able to buy bracelets or hats big enough.
The thread title is probably drawing in we outliers, so not a random sample.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions