You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
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/
Awesome link! Thanks for sharing!0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »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.
I've seen statistically improbable distributions on some TOM threads - these give the impression that a large amount of women have sleeping baby demons inside their wombs that wake up once a month. But I think it's the thread titles that attract women who have a particularly tough time at TOM.
This is so true!
Yes it is! This made me LOL.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.
I agree with this, although I should wear a 32E I wear a 34DD or even 36D because they're easier to get and are cheaper. I can wear them although they're not as supportive as they should be.
I don't understand the women posting 'I wear a 36 inch bra band and am therefore big boned' though. No that means you a standard size and can buy your bras off the shelf. So you must be average in Frame size.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
I've seen statistically improbable distributions on some TOM threads - these give the impression that a large amount of women have sleeping baby demons inside their wombs that wake up once a month. But I think it's the thread titles that attract women who have a particularly tough time at TOM.
Here's a statistically improbable amount of women who get headaches/migraines/cramps premenstrually http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10340003/ladies-who-get-bad-headaches-migraines-and-or-cramps-before-their-period1 -
I'm fat and I'm the first one to admit that, but even when I wasn't overweight, I had broad shoulders, but I'm tall so I carried it just fine. I could lose every ounce of fat on my body and my shoulders would still be just as broad. And yes, I do have the x-rays to prove it from when I tweaked my back.
So no, people shouldn't use their frame as an excuse to be overweight, but no, not everyone has the exact same frame. We are not robots. We did not come off of an assembly line.1 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
I agree with this, although I should wear a 32E I wear a 34DD or even 36D because they're easier to get and are cheaper. I can wear them although they're not as supportive as they should be.
I don't understand the women posting 'I wear a 36 inch bra band and am therefore big boned' though. No that means you a standard size and can buy your bras off the shelf. So you must be average in Frame size.
I don't believe there was any such post, but rather the woman with a 36 inch bra was commenting on her bra size, not her frame size.
If you can find it, please quote it.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
I agree with this, although I should wear a 32E I wear a 34DD or even 36D because they're easier to get and are cheaper. I can wear them although they're not as supportive as they should be.
I don't understand the women posting 'I wear a 36 inch bra band and am therefore big boned' though. No that means you a standard size and can buy your bras off the shelf. So you must be average in Frame size.
I don't believe there was any such post, but rather the woman with a 36 inch bra was commenting on her bra size, not her frame size.
If you can find it, please quote it.
It was probably me. Mine doesn't include any fat, and it's all ribs. I wore the same band size at 85 lbs. My point was that I'll never get into a size zero (not that I want to), even though plenty of girls my height wear smaller sizes naturally. It was more about variation in skeletons at the same height than my ribcage being particularly huge.
It is big enough that it shows my ribs at a higher overall bodyfat level than most girls, I think. Or either my body fat is lower than I think. But I don't having a problem fitting clothes for it like I do shoulders, unless the clothes are from Asia. Then the waist will fit but the zipper gets stuck on my ribs before you get to my boobs, lol. Meh, the boobs rarely fit anyway, so no Asian clothes for me, even sleeveless
1 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »It was probably me. Mine doesn't include any fat, and it's all ribs. I wore the same band size at 85 lbs. My point was that I'll never get into a size zero (not that I want to), even though plenty of girls my height wear smaller sizes naturally. It was more about variation in skeletons at the same height than my ribcage being particularly huge.
It is big enough that it shows my ribs at a higher overall bodyfat level than most girls, I think. Or either my body fat is lower than I think. But I don't having a problem fitting clothes for it like I do shoulders, unless the clothes are from Asia. Then the waist will fit but the zipper gets stuck on my ribs before you get to my boobs, lol. Meh, the boobs rarely fit anyway, so no Asian clothes for me, even sleeveless
I think your body fat is lower than you think it is. Either that or you store an abnormal amount of fat around internal organs as opposed to subcutaneously. Which I guess is possible but given your profile picture, again, somewhat improbable. Your body frame reminds me a great deal of my former stepdaughter. She had extremely broad shoulders and was quite thin at a much higher weight than most of our peers. She was very athletic and lean, but her ribs were wide thanks to all her exercise.
Interestingly, my measurement at my band is the smallest its ever been right now, 35" even though I'm 25 lbs above my lowest adult weight. However, there's a difference in what I do for activity now... I walk a LOT. Back then I swam an hour a day, and played French Horn. My ability to hold my breath is absolutely a shadow of what it was 20 years ago, and I dont' think its just the asthma. I'm pretty sure that all that swimming managed to expand my ribcage and I've lost a lot of lung capacity over the years since I was a regular swimmer.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »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.
I agree with this, although I should wear a 32E I wear a 34DD or even 36D because they're easier to get and are cheaper. I can wear them although they're not as supportive as they should be.
I don't understand the women posting 'I wear a 36 inch bra band and am therefore big boned' though. No that means you a standard size and can buy your bras off the shelf. So you must be average in Frame size.
I don't believe there was any such post, but rather the woman with a 36 inch bra was commenting on her bra size, not her frame size.
If you can find it, please quote it.
It was probably me. Mine doesn't include any fat, and it's all ribs. I wore the same band size at 85 lbs. My point was that I'll never get into a size zero (not that I want to), even though plenty of girls my height wear smaller sizes naturally. It was more about variation in skeletons at the same height than my ribcage being particularly huge.
It is big enough that it shows my ribs at a higher overall bodyfat level than most girls, I think. Or either my body fat is lower than I think. But I don't having a problem fitting clothes for it like I do shoulders, unless the clothes are from Asia. Then the waist will fit but the zipper gets stuck on my ribs before you get to my boobs, lol. Meh, the boobs rarely fit anyway, so no Asian clothes for me, even sleeveless
Ya, I was at my goal weight when I lived in Okinawa and none of the clothes off-base fit me.1 -
I have medium bones. I am most certainly not a tiny boned person. I've seen the x-rays. It means that at 122 pounds, about 100+ pounds of it is lean mass from larger bones and larger muscles. At 115 pounds, I look gaunt.0
-
Shoulder and chest size mean very little. I have broad shoulders and a large rib cage. But I also have small wrists and now I can see I have a very thin, tall frame. Trimmed down I have a very pronounced Y shape. Due to my shoulder width and chest size, I was always led to believe I was "big boned". The truth surfaced once the weight started coming off.0
-
lithezebra wrote: »I have medium bones. I am most certainly not a tiny boned person. I've seen the x-rays. It means that at 122 pounds, about 100+ pounds of it is lean mass from larger bones and larger muscles. At 115 pounds, I look gaunt.
@lithezebra How tall are you?1 -
Holy thread necro batman!
That being said, big boned and big frames do definitely exist.
I've shoulders like a linebacker (as a lady) and while my rib cage is remarkably narrow, I have birthing hips to balance out my shoulders.
If I ever get to goal weight (and I fully intend to) I'm very interested to see what I look like. I give it a 50/50 chance that I look like Jessica Rabbit. With less boobs.
If that happens, I'm dying my hair red again. Very red.2 -
Holy thread necro batman!
That being said, big boned and big frames do definitely exist.
I've shoulders like a linebacker (as a lady) and while my rib cage is remarkably narrow, I have birthing hips to balance out my shoulders.
If I ever get to goal weight (and I fully intend to) I'm very interested to see what I look like. I give it a 50/50 chance that I look like Jessica Rabbit. With less boobs.
If that happens, I'm dying my hair red again. Very red.
The conversation on http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10418141/am-i-really-that-over-weight/p1 is actually more relevant to this thread, so I bumped it.2 -
Shoulder and chest size mean very little. I have broad shoulders and a large rib cage. But I also have small wrists and now I can see I have a very thin, tall frame. Trimmed down I have a very pronounced Y shape. Due to my shoulder width and chest size, I was always led to believe I was "big boned". The truth surfaced once the weight started coming off.
You know, alternatively you could say your small wrists lead you to believe you have a small frame while other measurements of your body tell you something different.
I have a problem buying jackets and shirts out of non-stretchy materials because my shoulders are broad and my torso long so an M or L fits better there, but on the other hand even S size tends to have sleeves that are almost too long for me.
My feet are also bigger than average. They're apparently more the size that's expected of a 6'2'' teenager than my 5'10 in my mid twenties.
If you use a different measure site on your body, you can get different results, which is why I find those frame size calculators sorta useless.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Shoulder and chest size mean very little. I have broad shoulders and a large rib cage. But I also have small wrists and now I can see I have a very thin, tall frame. Trimmed down I have a very pronounced Y shape. Due to my shoulder width and chest size, I was always led to believe I was "big boned". The truth surfaced once the weight started coming off.
You know, alternatively you could say your small wrists lead you to believe you have a small frame while other measurements of your body tell you something different.
I have a problem buying jackets and shirts out of non-stretchy materials because my shoulders are broad and my torso long so an M or L fits better there, but on the other hand even S size tends to have sleeves that are almost too long for me.
My feet are also bigger than average. They're apparently more the size that's expected of a 6'2'' teenager than my 5'10 in my mid twenties.
If you use a different measure site on your body, you can get different results, which is why I find those frame size calculators sorta useless.
I have a big head, wrists, elbows, ribcage, and feet
1 -
I always said of myself "I have a short torso for my height" but my bike mechanic was fitting me for a new commuter and I made that comment, and he replied "Or, you could say you're leggy for your height." It's always glass have empty with some people.2
-
My head is pretty much smack dab average I just measured. So I got one measurement that says "small", one "average" and two "above average (a bit)". If I went with calculators, they'd all tell me "small" because all they use is the one thing that says small.0
-
This just made me laugh. I DO have broad shoulders and hips and always will. Grade 10 high school-slightly underweight size 9 pants for the hips, tinier waist and small boobs. In University a friend sewed shirts for her boyfriend-she had me try them on-broad shoulders. My mother and both sisters have smaller frames (bones) than I do. Younger sister was a size 4 when she got married. My mom's waist was 22 inches when she married. Nope not me. Older sister is built different than me-smaller waist to hip ratio and smaller shoulders. A more boyish figure than me-not the hips or the shoulders I have.
I know what I look like without excess weight. That's how I have been most of my life-on the skinny side.
I'll likely never get smaller than a 9 and that's quite ok. I am still aiming for goal weight and I kind of like my shoulders and hips!0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »I have medium bones. I am most certainly not a tiny boned person. I've seen the x-rays. It means that at 122 pounds, about 100+ pounds of it is lean mass from larger bones and larger muscles. At 115 pounds, I look gaunt.
@lithezebra How tall are you?
@kshama2001 I'm 5' 4"0 -
I fell on ice outside school about 10 years ago. I fell on my hip so they sent me to ER to get x-rays.
The x-ray doctor said I had the largest sacrum (triangular bone that the tailbone attaches to) he's ever seen in his 30+ years of practice. I was like...uh, thank you?
But he said i also had larger hip/pelvic bones and that went along with it. (Also some of the largest he'd ever seen).
I'm fat but it's not my bones causing it.
Though, according to that dr I've got great bones for carrying babies lol. Once again, thank you I think
Tl;dr yes, larger bones are possible!0 -
My favorite part about this thread coming back is learning how many more people are all outliers for *reasons*.8
-
My mom once told me that everyone in my family is "big boned", so we shouldn't feel bad about being two steps shy of requiring a Wide Load flagging.
Then two of us lost over 100 lbs., and realized that they're all full of crap. Funny that.11 -
I like having wide shoulders now as I feel like I can carry my weight better. I hated it in high school though. I wasn't fat and had a normal BMI but still wore a size large Juniors shirt. Now I am borderline overweight in upper normal BMI range and would love to get back down to a BMI 21-22 again as I was 36/26/36 then. The actual bones across the tops of my shoulders to the arm joint won't shrink.0
-
I always thought I was big boned until I lost weight and now I realize I am actually VERY petite. My bone structure is TINY!3
-
lithezebra wrote: »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).
Yes, I have 17 inch across shoulders. I can wear ladies size large shirts easily. Even if I lose 10 pounds I will still be more comfortable wearing large because I don't like tight across the shoulders.1 -
I gain muscle super easily too within about 3-6 weeks of working out.0 -
-
I mentioned this on the thread that is now MIA. My husband and I are both 5'7". The healthy range for our height is 110-159 lbs. He, being male, has heavier, denser bones and more muscle mass than I do. He looks best in the 150s. I look better between 135 and 145; in the 150s I look pretty pudgy. He still looks pretty good int he 160s; I look downright fat in the 160s. So, yes, frame size makes a difference. That said, I do wish there were separate bmi charts for men and women. The trade off would be that the appropriate ranges would be smaller, but I think it would be more accurate/useful.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions