You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
jobellerina wrote: »The OP is talking nonsense. I know someone of the same height who looked far thinner than me when they were 10 stone than when I was 8 stone. She had size 7 feet to my 5, 36" rib cage to my (then) 28" and was overall broader than me. I genuinely do not understand how people can see the natural variation in animal breeds sizes/shapes/frames and then claim that people could or should have exactly the same physique. It's ridiculous.
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.
My best friend is 5'7" and has weighed as little as 127 pounds. Trust me, she has broad shoulders and large wrists. She has a large frame. It does exist.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »So, I completely agree that people have different frame sizes.
However, I'm an example of someone who used to think that I was "big boned" when I was just fat. I've always had a larger ring size (my engagement ring is a size 9, which for a 5'3" female is pretty big) and when I would do the wrist measurement, it always came out as a large frame. This thinking really hurt me because I really believed that there was no point to even trying to lose weight because I would always be big.
Then something changed and I decided to lose weight anyway. Even if I ended up larger, I would still aim for a lower body fat and look muscular. So I started losing. Funny thing happened - my rings are huge on me and my fitbit slowly but surely got looser. I was seriously shocked, not kidding. I didn't think my wrists/fingers would have so much fat around them that they would change so drastically. Now when I do the measurements, I'm medium framed, and it could go down even more as I reach my ideal weight. I'm waiting until I'm done losing weight to get my rings resized.
Basically, my point isn't that I don't believe that people have large frames. Some people absolutely do. But I do believe that you can't really use any of the online measurements unless you are close to your ideal weight (by body fat %) or else they just don't work. A lot of obese people will believe they are large framed when they are not because the measurements don't work when you have excess body fat.
I agree with this. My wrists have gotten tiny after I lost weight, and I still have a fair amount of weight to lose. The frame tests used to tell me I had a large frame, now they tell me I have a small frame. People may have large frames, but I don't think the size of your wrist is a good way to determine this.1 -
I have 13.5 inch shoulders. My friend has 18 inch shoulders. It is indeed possible for two women who are not very different in height to have very different frame sizes. (She has an amazing hourglass figure to go with those shoulders).1
-
SingRunTing wrote: »So, I completely agree that people have different frame sizes.
However, I'm an example of someone who used to think that I was "big boned" when I was just fat. I've always had a larger ring size (my engagement ring is a size 9, which for a 5'3" female is pretty big) and when I would do the wrist measurement, it always came out as a large frame. This thinking really hurt me because I really believed that there was no point to even trying to lose weight because I would always be big.
Then something changed and I decided to lose weight anyway. Even if I ended up larger, I would still aim for a lower body fat and look muscular. So I started losing. Funny thing happened - my rings are huge on me and my fitbit slowly but surely got looser. I was seriously shocked, not kidding. I didn't think my wrists/fingers would have so much fat around them that they would change so drastically. Now when I do the measurements, I'm medium framed, and it could go down even more as I reach my ideal weight. I'm waiting until I'm done losing weight to get my rings resized.
Basically, my point isn't that I don't believe that people have large frames. Some people absolutely do. But I do believe that you can't really use any of the online measurements unless you are close to your ideal weight (by body fat %) or else they just don't work. A lot of obese people will believe they are large framed when they are not because the measurements don't work when you have excess body fat.
I agree with this. My wrists have gotten tiny after I lost weight, and I still have a fair amount of weight to lose. The frame tests used to tell me I had a large frame, now they tell me I have a small frame. People may have large frames, but I don't think the size of your wrist is a good way to determine this.
It is if you don't have fat on your wrists--mine are 8.5". No fat on my wrists--they can't get any smaller.0 -
I think it goes a bit beyond frame too. I would even say that muscle density factors in as well. I'm fat but I wear a smaller pants size than my friend that is 20 lbs lighter than me.0
-
SingRunTing wrote: »So, I completely agree that people have different frame sizes.
However, I'm an example of someone who used to think that I was "big boned" when I was just fat. I've always had a larger ring size (my engagement ring is a size 9, which for a 5'3" female is pretty big) and when I would do the wrist measurement, it always came out as a large frame. This thinking really hurt me because I really believed that there was no point to even trying to lose weight because I would always be big.
Then something changed and I decided to lose weight anyway. Even if I ended up larger, I would still aim for a lower body fat and look muscular. So I started losing. Funny thing happened - my rings are huge on me and my fitbit slowly but surely got looser. I was seriously shocked, not kidding. I didn't think my wrists/fingers would have so much fat around them that they would change so drastically. Now when I do the measurements, I'm medium framed, and it could go down even more as I reach my ideal weight. I'm waiting until I'm done losing weight to get my rings resized.
Basically, my point isn't that I don't believe that people have large frames. Some people absolutely do. But I do believe that you can't really use any of the online measurements unless you are close to your ideal weight (by body fat %) or else they just don't work. A lot of obese people will believe they are large framed when they are not because the measurements don't work when you have excess body fat.
I agree with this. My wrists have gotten tiny after I lost weight, and I still have a fair amount of weight to lose. The frame tests used to tell me I had a large frame, now they tell me I have a small frame. People may have large frames, but I don't think the size of your wrist is a good way to determine this.
My issue with bracelets not fitting occurred before I was overweight. In fact, my grandmother's bracelet only fit me when I was a child. I added links to it after I inherited it.
BTW, I add links with the little gold circles from the jewelry section at Michael's craft stores and two needle-nose pliers. I'm sure jewelery stores would do this as well.1 -
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.
A thread like this would probably attract a disproportionately large number of people with large frames. After all, they're the ones being specifically pointed out as being delusional.
Based on experience with clinical trials, I disagree. Titles like this attract a disproportionately large number of people who believe they have large frames whether they do or not. That may or may not skew the stats towards those who actually do have larger frames than most others their height. And I agree, the thread title does imply that they are delusional.
I certainly don't believe that they're all delusional. I do think some are likely to not be correct in their self-assessment.0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Please correct me if wrong OP but wasn't this thread about overweight people using "I'm big boned" as an excuse for there weight? Cause that's the impression I got.
Nope.
To refresh your memory, the OP included:
"You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''"
"The ''body frame size calculators'' are WRONG."
The OP objects to people like me saying I don't worry about being in the Normal part of the BMI chart due to my large frame. The only time I've ever had a BMI of 24 was after 6 weeks of under-eating and over-exercising in military boot camp when I was 19. When I get to a low Overweight BMI, that will be good enough for me.1 -
This topic prompted me to look up the whole "wrist size" thing and I was surprised to see guidelines and tables on an NIH govt website. I've never given much credence to that at all. But maybe that's because I am trained to look at lean body mass as a whole, rather than just "bone structure".
Based on my experience, tracking body fat is the only really useful tool for analyzing changes in body composition and for determining realistic weight-loss goals.
A couple of years ago, I just so happened to have 3 good example come in in a short period of time for assessments. All were women, 5'4" in height. Based on their lean body mass baselines, their goal weights for a 25% body fat target were 108lbs, 127lbs, and 149lbs.0 -
I naturally have wider hips and larger knees and ankles. My upper body is very thin though so no matter how much fat I lose from my legs I will always have thicker legs than a person who has naturally thin ankles and knees. This is the point where you need to understand your body and set realistic goals.0
-
This topic prompted me to look up the whole "wrist size" thing and I was surprised to see guidelines and tables on an NIH govt website. I've never given much credence to that at all. But maybe that's because I am trained to look at lean body mass as a whole, rather than just "bone structure".
Based on my experience, tracking body fat is the only really useful tool for analyzing changes in body composition and for determining realistic weight-loss goals.
A couple of years ago, I just so happened to have 3 good example come in in a short period of time for assessments. All were women, 5'4" in height. Based on their lean body mass baselines, their goal weights for a 25% body fat target were 108lbs, 127lbs, and 149lbs.
Ya, I plan to ask my doctor for a DEXA body fat scan when I get to my goal weight.
How do you assess body fat percentages?1 -
justrollme wrote: »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.
Definitely not accurate. I wish very, very much that I could fit in a 36D, where there is a much bigger, cuter and often cheaper selection of bras. I don't wear 32DDD because of vanity, it's because that's my actual size. When the band is too loose, the straps hurt my shoulders a lot. (I know this because I kept trying to fit into wrong sizes!) It is a pain to find my real size, and there aren't too many cute ones at all.
Well okay, I did say I might be wrong. And I still stand by my statement that there are a lot of people in too small a band size out there. That doesn't mean you and the other poster aren't exceptions to that. It's not difficult for me personally to wear a bra with a band size that is one size too small. I accidentally bought the wrong size once. Because I didn't want to waste money I got some extenders so I could keep wearing them. Well after about a month and a half or so I didn't need the extenders anymore because the elastic had stretched out. Again, not saying this applies to you or the other poster. Just saying I think it's a thing for some women out there.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
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.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...
Just how many do you think there be, statistically? MFP has a large following, and the responses to this thread hardly represent a random sampling of it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it has drawn the attention of a disproportionate number of members who are more than a standard deviation or two from the mean.
On average? If 90% are in the normal shoulder width group and we assume an equal bell curve in both directions, 5% would have bigger than average bones, with most of them still being barely above the average, so I'd say, less than 2%, possibly 1% of the population have noticably wider shoulders than the general population. Probably the same with other measurements too. In here there's obviously more than that but as was pointed out, I guess they're more drawn to this thread to begin with.
You're conflating "normal" with "average." If "normal" is defined as a range, then there'll be noticeable, or at least measurable differences within that range. And you don't have to stand out as abnormal for your variance from the mean to have an impact on your ideal weight or what size clothing you buy. The healthy BMI range for my height is 118.1 lbs - 159.6 lbs, a spread of more than 40 lbs. But that's for the population as a whole. How many individuals do you know who would find any and every point along that range to be equally satisfactory? I happen to have a smallish frame and am most comfortable near the low end. And I wouldn't have to fall off the high end to be noticeably fat.
And of course you're right about who will be drawn to this thread. It's more likely to have caught your attention if you've had reason to wonder why you can't find jeans that fit.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »justrollme wrote: »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.
Definitely not accurate. I wish very, very much that I could fit in a 36D, where there is a much bigger, cuter and often cheaper selection of bras. I don't wear 32DDD because of vanity, it's because that's my actual size. When the band is too loose, the straps hurt my shoulders a lot. (I know this because I kept trying to fit into wrong sizes!) It is a pain to find my real size, and there aren't too many cute ones at all.
Well okay, I did say I might be wrong. And I still stand by my statement that there are a lot of people in too small a band size out there. That doesn't mean you and the other poster aren't exceptions to that. It's not difficult for me personally to wear a bra with a band size that is one size too small. I accidentally bought the wrong size once. Because I didn't want to waste money I got some extenders so I could keep wearing them. Well after about a month and a half or so I didn't need the extenders anymore because the elastic had stretched out. Again, not saying this applies to you or the other poster. Just saying I think it's a thing for some women out there.
Like I mentioned, you kind of have it backwards. My experience fitting bras indicates it's much more common in reverse, because women obviously would rather be able to buy off-the-rack at the mall and not spend twice as much at specialty stores or online, and soooo many women walk around with unnecessary pain and discomfort because they think they must be at least a 32, as that's the limited range available in lots of stores. Furthermore, when a bra is too tight, most women immediately know it and wouldn't purchase it (because it barely fastens and is digging into the skin or ribs etc., instantly uncomfortable), whereas when a bra is too loose, it's often harder to tell right away as pressure from the straps etc. can take time to show up. For example, I can wear a 32 in a dressing room and think it's okay, but it's loose enough to pull over my head without unfastening and if I have to buy that bra and wear it all day, by evening my whole back and shoulder area is screaming.
In regard to your other comment, because the elastic stretches is exactly why there are typically three sets of hooks on a bra - you are intended to buy them to fit on the largest hook at first so as the elastic stretches and weakens over time, the bra can then be worn on the tighter hooks, thus extending its life.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
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.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...
Just how many do you think there be, statistically? MFP has a large following, and the responses to this thread hardly represent a random sampling of it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it has drawn the attention of a disproportionate number of members who are more than a standard deviation or two from the mean.
On average? If 90% are in the normal shoulder width group and we assume an equal bell curve in both directions, 5% would have bigger than average bones, with most of them still being barely above the average, so I'd say, less than 2%, possibly 1% of the population have noticably wider shoulders than the general population. Probably the same with other measurements too. In here there's obviously more than that but as was pointed out, I guess they're more drawn to this thread to begin with.
You're conflating "normal" with "average." If "normal" is defined as a range, then there'll be noticeable, or at least measurable differences within that range. And you don't have to stand out as abnormal for your variance from the mean to have an impact on your ideal weight or what size clothing you buy. The healthy BMI range for my height is 118.1 lbs - 159.6 lbs, a spread of more than 40 lbs. But that's for the population as a whole. How many individuals do you know who would find any and every point along that range to be equally satisfactory? I happen to have a smallish frame and am most comfortable near the low end. And I wouldn't have to fall off the high end to be noticeably fat.
And of course you're right about who will be drawn to this thread. It's more likely to have caught your attention if you've had reason to wonder why you can't find jeans that fit.
How a bodyweight looks on you is very dependent on the amount of muscle mass from that bodyweight. There's some pictures of the same person looking slimmer at higher bodyweight because she increased her muscle mass and reduced bodyfat.0 -
Pft yeah ok OP. Tell that to my husband with a barrel for a rib cage and shop for his button up shirts. Using your "frame" as an excuse for weight or whatever is another story but everyone has different builds.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I will have to respectively disagree. At my smallest, and unhealthiest, in adult life I was a size 14. It was gross looking and I looked like a drug addict. And to a lot of people a size 14 is still "huge." But for my bone structure, broad shoulders, wide hips, long legs a size 18 would be ideal for me.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
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.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...
Just how many do you think there be, statistically? MFP has a large following, and the responses to this thread hardly represent a random sampling of it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it has drawn the attention of a disproportionate number of members who are more than a standard deviation or two from the mean.
On average? If 90% are in the normal shoulder width group and we assume an equal bell curve in both directions, 5% would have bigger than average bones, with most of them still being barely above the average, so I'd say, less than 2%, possibly 1% of the population have noticably wider shoulders than the general population. Probably the same with other measurements too. In here there's obviously more than that but as was pointed out, I guess they're more drawn to this thread to begin with.
You're conflating "normal" with "average." If "normal" is defined as a range, then there'll be noticeable, or at least measurable differences within that range. And you don't have to stand out as abnormal for your variance from the mean to have an impact on your ideal weight or what size clothing you buy. The healthy BMI range for my height is 118.1 lbs - 159.6 lbs, a spread of more than 40 lbs. But that's for the population as a whole. How many individuals do you know who would find any and every point along that range to be equally satisfactory? I happen to have a smallish frame and am most comfortable near the low end. And I wouldn't have to fall off the high end to be noticeably fat.
And of course you're right about who will be drawn to this thread. It's more likely to have caught your attention if you've had reason to wonder why you can't find jeans that fit.
How a bodyweight looks on you is very dependent on the amount of muscle mass from that bodyweight. There's some pictures of the same person looking slimmer at higher bodyweight because she increased her muscle mass and reduced bodyfat.
Yep, but there's a "normal" range of muscle mass too. And body fat. Frame size will be completely independent of other factors only when you've been in the ground long for everything else to decay.0 -
Not true I have a bigger frame with broad shoulders. And I gain muscle easily because of that. BMI says I'm borderline overweight but my fat percentage is normal to low actually0
-
snowflake954 wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »So, I completely agree that people have different frame sizes.
However, I'm an example of someone who used to think that I was "big boned" when I was just fat. I've always had a larger ring size (my engagement ring is a size 9, which for a 5'3" female is pretty big) and when I would do the wrist measurement, it always came out as a large frame. This thinking really hurt me because I really believed that there was no point to even trying to lose weight because I would always be big.
Then something changed and I decided to lose weight anyway. Even if I ended up larger, I would still aim for a lower body fat and look muscular. So I started losing. Funny thing happened - my rings are huge on me and my fitbit slowly but surely got looser. I was seriously shocked, not kidding. I didn't think my wrists/fingers would have so much fat around them that they would change so drastically. Now when I do the measurements, I'm medium framed, and it could go down even more as I reach my ideal weight. I'm waiting until I'm done losing weight to get my rings resized.
Basically, my point isn't that I don't believe that people have large frames. Some people absolutely do. But I do believe that you can't really use any of the online measurements unless you are close to your ideal weight (by body fat %) or else they just don't work. A lot of obese people will believe they are large framed when they are not because the measurements don't work when you have excess body fat.
I agree with this. My wrists have gotten tiny after I lost weight, and I still have a fair amount of weight to lose. The frame tests used to tell me I had a large frame, now they tell me I have a small frame. People may have large frames, but I don't think the size of your wrist is a good way to determine this.
It is if you don't have fat on your wrists--mine are 8.5". No fat on my wrists--they can't get any smaller.
True, but considering the obesity rates in the US, going by this test could mislead a large portion of the population. I would think it works better for some, who like you, don't carry fat in their wrists.0 -
I know it's not 100 percent accurate but you can track your progress if you use a consistent method of measurement. I personally got measured at a hospital, a full body electrical scan I forget what it's called like a scale but it takes your individual body parts and reads fat free mass vs fat mass, water, etc. It said I was 18% bodyfat at the moment with around 130 lb of fat free mass. Was lower before when I was leaner and not bulking..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 LOL0 -
ChrisRendon1128 wrote: »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 LOL
Having read this thread, I now believe hat head sizes are identical for people of the same height.0 -
I know it's not 100 percent accurate but you can track your progress if you use a consistent method of measurement. I personally got measured at a hospital, a full body electrical scan I forget what it's called like a scale but it takes your individual body parts and reads fat free mass vs fat mass, water, etc. It said I was 18% bodyfat at the moment with around 130 lb of fat free mass. Was lower before when I was leaner and not bulking..
18% is very lean for a woman and based on your profile pic i don't doubt it.
Here's an interesting article on the different methods of measuring body fat if youre interested though, and their limitations. You sound like you got a BIA:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-3-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-1-and-2/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-1/0 -
I know it's not 100 percent accurate but you can track your progress if you use a consistent method of measurement. I personally got measured at a hospital, a full body electrical scan I forget what it's called like a scale but it takes your individual body parts and reads fat free mass vs fat mass, water, etc. It said I was 18% bodyfat at the moment with around 130 lb of fat free mass. Was lower before when I was leaner and not bulking..
18% is very lean for a woman and based on your profile pic i don't doubt it.
Here's an interesting article on the different methods of measuring body fat if youre interested though, and their limitations. You sound like you got a BIA:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-3-the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-parts-1-and-2/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-1/
Thanks for the links, very informative!0 -
@tomteboda i found it after i got a BIA scan result that i didn't like
0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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