You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
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 shoulder bones don't shrink when I lose weight.4 -
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.
And that's why now, 60+ pounds down, I need to buy a size L in a short-sleeved t-shirt that is the very same brand as the S tank top that fits just fine (or maybe a little big). Because I don't have broad shoulders. Uh huh.
I grant you, it used to be a 1X t-shirt.1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know if this is pertinent to this discussion, but what about those women who can't give birth naturally because their pelvis is too narrow. Obviously these women have a smaller frame then the women who have no problems popping out babies.
Actually, what you are referring to is called Cephalopelvic Disproportion, and while it is common for doctors to over diagnose this in cases of "failure to progress" during childbirth, it's actually incredibly rare and usually accompanied by other abnormalities in her structure or anatomy. One such situation is when the pelvis fails to open to allow birth, which can be caused by diabetes and genetic factors. The pelvis has joints that loosen and open to allow the child to pass through, just as the baby's skull has the soft spot, to allow it to shrink down to fit.
"Cephalopelvic disproportion is rare. According to the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM), CPD occurs in 1 out of 250 pregnancies."
In addition to being a very over-used and misapplied excuse for "failure to progress, it's also near impossible to diagnose until DURING labor. Ultrasounds are only guesstimations of fetal weight and size.
http://americanpregnancy.org/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/
I'm a certified doula, was working my way toward midwife when oops, got married, had baby, stayed home with him:)
Way over diagnosed. I was told my pelvis was too narrow with my first, so I had a c/s.
I then had 2 vaginal births in the next 3 years, disproving that theory.1 -
Khatastrophic wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »As an xray tech who looks at xrays all day this was a very interesting thread.........and I will keep my answers to myself, this is way more fun.
Same here.. I haven't laughed this hard at a thread in awhile
Are you saying that everyone has the same density bones
?
Density isn't the same as size. And bone density doesn't make up too much of your weight either. The average skeleton is 15% of your bodyweight (at a healthy weight I guess), making it about 20 pounds for an average Joe. So even if you had bones that are 50% denser than average (which i'm doubtful there's even normal people who have that), that would be an extra 10 pounds.
What's also funny is that the very first thing that comes up when you type in "Skeleton weight" on google tells you "While people do have different frame size, most who weigh too much for their height do so because of excess body fat." which was the entire point of the thread to begin with if I recollect, but people just love to make strawmen "So you say everyone's skeleton is the same size, huhhh???"6 -
Yes, whether people were talking about size versus density has me confused.0
-
This is not true. Nobody has the same frame. I have an extremely small frame, tiny wrist and tiny legs. Boots never seem to fit right around my calves. This is why I don't carry extra weight very well.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 shoulder bones don't shrink when I lose weight.
It must be very uncomfortable to not have any fat or muscle on your shoulders.
As I lose, parts of me have gotten smaller that I didn't even realize were that big. I was aware of the fat on my arms, thighs, etc, but it was really nice when the hump on the back of my neck disappeared. Or I always thought that I had big neck muscles, which is why there was just a gentle downward slope from my neck to my shoulders (which leads to lots of bra straps slipping off). Now that I've lost 100lbs, I have realized I don't have huge neck muscles, and my shoulders are shaped differently. I never would have thought that.3 -
Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.3
-
[quote="...womens size 10 are hard to find in cute styles without ordering online
Try being a 12... I have to go to sites that cater to men who pretend to be women just to find cute shoes.
[/quote]
Yeah? Try 10AA. Well, 9.5AA to 11B, depending on the shoe, running shoes I usually take 11. Wide shoes seem to be widely available (ha ha) and narrow shoes are very hard to find. Zappos, and Nordstrom, have some, but to avoid disappointment I only shop online and filter by size first so I don't see all the ones I can't get. Which is pretty much all of them
I don't understand the earlier quote that 90% of women are inside of a range of 2 shoe sizes, regardless of height. We have a bigger range than that just in my immediate family, and we are all related. It seems very unlikely that the whole population has less variation than that...2 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know if this is pertinent to this discussion, but what about those women who can't give birth naturally because their pelvis is too narrow. Obviously these women have a smaller frame then the women who have no problems popping out babies.
Actually, what you are referring to is called Cephalopelvic Disproportion, and while it is common for doctors to over diagnose this in cases of "failure to progress" during childbirth, it's actually incredibly rare and usually accompanied by other abnormalities in her structure or anatomy. One such situation is when the pelvis fails to open to allow birth, which can be caused by diabetes and genetic factors. The pelvis has joints that loosen and open to allow the child to pass through, just as the baby's skull has the soft spot, to allow it to shrink down to fit.
"Cephalopelvic disproportion is rare. According to the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM), CPD occurs in 1 out of 250 pregnancies."
In addition to being a very over-used and misapplied excuse for "failure to progress, it's also near impossible to diagnose until DURING labor. Ultrasounds are only guesstimations of fetal weight and size.
http://americanpregnancy.org/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/
I'm a certified doula, was working my way toward midwife when oops, got married, had baby, stayed home with him:)
Way over diagnosed. I was told my pelvis was too narrow with my first, so I had a c/s.
I then had 2 vaginal births in the next 3 years, disproving that theory.
My midwife explained this as "exterior width doesn't determine interior diameter" or some similar phrase. I am narrow hipped but popped out 10lb babies fine, as did my mom, and sister, but my half sister who has much wider hip bone spread, needed c-section because the bones didn't move apart when the labor came, they were injured in a car accident so didn't open up right. It doesn't have much to do with your hip size.
She did also say, though, that while usually you don't grow a baby you can't birth, my mom (5'3", 100lb when not pregnant, 10lb babies) was about the limit of what was considered OK, that if she had been any smaller, or the babies bigger, c-section would be safer even if everything else was normal in the pregnancy. So there is some actual limit.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
my shoulders did get smaller...I went from an XLarge fitted jacket to a med....but I still have broad shoulders.
I have a linen shirt on today...not a lot of give to it so I had to get it in a medium to fit my shoulders well...if it was a different fabric prob would be a small...I love the shirt but wish I could have gotten it to fit my whole upper body not just my shoulders as it looks "baggy"
I don't think those here saying they do have a large frame are saying that's why they are heavier than "normal". We are all here for the same reason but given the differences in people some are bound to have differences in bones as well.
To argue against there being differences in shapes, lengths, widths, and depths of bone structures would be ridiculous. No one's saying that everyone's skeleton is the exact same. The whole thread started as a rebuttal again the oft used by the obese, "I gots big bones" excuse.
There will be variations, but unless one has some crazy stuff going on (ie, gigantism), it's never going to be enough difference to justify carrying around an extra 10+% bodyfat.
Totally agree...I was one of those that didn't think I could get to a size small anything due to my "structure"...
*hangs head* I wear a small in most things...except shoes they are still an 8.5 down from a 91 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
I didn't lose enough to make it matter. My body stays relatively proportional. Good call.
Edited to add: I do take measurements. Misses sizing gives an inch or two leeway before switching sizes. I wear a loose size
12 USA when I can get into a mid normal BMI range and wear a tight size 12 when I gain 10 pounds weight and am in upper normal BMI for my height. My proportions are pretty much the same as the sizing chart off the racks.0 -
My body gains fairly proportionally all over, and I've never been obese. Primarily I struggle with "vanity" pounds. Although I've moved into the top of normal range BMI and really need to get these extra 10 pounds off. But my shirt sizes won't change.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 shoulder bones don't shrink when I lose weight.
It must be very uncomfortable to not have any fat or muscle on your shoulders.
As I lose, parts of me have gotten smaller that I didn't even realize were that big. I was aware of the fat on my arms, thighs, etc, but it was really nice when the hump on the back of my neck disappeared. Or I always thought that I had big neck muscles, which is why there was just a gentle downward slope from my neck to my shoulders (which leads to lots of bra straps slipping off). Now that I've lost 100lbs, I have realized I don't have huge neck muscles, and my shoulders are shaped differently. I never would have thought that.
I have fairly muscular shoulders. The size across the top of my shoulders from joint to joint doesn't change. The girth around my chest does change, but not a huge amount enough to make a difference. My size large ladies' shirts fill out when I gain 10 pounds and then gets more comfy when I lose 10 pounds. But I can still wear them. Size medium just doesn't fit across the shoulders very well even when I get slimmer. (I am between 5'7" and 5'8").
Edited for grammar0 -
Once again, there's an epic amount of hand wringing and excuse making in this thread. For those of us who had similar views in the past, but successfully lost weight and gained actual muscle it's obvious. If you're not actively weight lifting or engaged in a sport such as swimming or gymnastics then no, you're not muscular. That doesn't just happen from sitting on a couch.3
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Once again, there's an epic amount of hand wringing and excuse making in this thread. For those of us who had similar views in the past, but successfully lost weight and gained actual muscle it's obvious. If you're not actively weight lifting or engaged in a sport such as swimming or gymnastics then no, you're not muscular. That doesn't just happen from sitting on a couch.
It happens from lifting a 140 pound 14 year old son who is in a wheelchair. Dressing him, pushing wheelchair up hills, transferring him, etc.5 -
Oh, well...here is just one more "bone" to add to the pile. When I was in high school and weighing all of 97 pounds, I was measured for body type by doctors at Walter Reed. My wrists were nearly an inch bigger around than my other 5'3" cohorts. My hands were bigger. The width and measurement around my knees and elbows was bigger. My shoulders and pelvic girdle measurements were bigger. My feet were wider and bigger. I was very active, and involved in dance, gymnastics, and sports such as field hockey. I was officially classified as big boned. I could not wear much of the same size of anything as my classmates, and finding clothes to fit me correctly was a chore. Therefore, my mother and I made a lot of my wardrobe. My older brother is the same way.
I am starting to get back towards my goal weight, and lifting, swimming, and cardio are helping me get back to my former shape. I doubt that I will ever get back to 97 pounds, but I can still fool nearly everyone who thinks they can guess my weight.5 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Once again, there's an epic amount of hand wringing and excuse making in this thread. For those of us who had similar views in the past, but successfully lost weight and gained actual muscle it's obvious. If you're not actively weight lifting or engaged in a sport such as swimming or gymnastics then no, you're not muscular. That doesn't just happen from sitting on a couch.
It happens from lifting a 140 pound 14 year old son who is in a wheelchair. Dressing him, pushing wheelchair up hills, transferring him, etc.
You understand that is muscle and not bone? If he's been in a wheelchair for any length time while growing then you literally have been on a progressive overload program. This happens with mothers who carry and lift their children regularly, even as toddlers. It's more so with you, but it's muscle not bone and it didn't occur from being sedentary.
ETA: you might want to get your body fat percentage measured so you can see where you really are in terms of comp.0 -
there IS such a thing as "big boned" and/or "big framed". are you a medical doctor proficient in EVERY living human being on this earth????????? no, i don't think so. therefore, if MY doctor that knows ME says i am "big boned", then he/she is correct. not you0
-
9 -
This information may be helpful for those wondering how much of a difference this really makes in regards to weight.
http://www.hamiltonhospital.org/healthbeats/hb_bodyweight.html
Disclaimer - wrist measurement alone can't tell you where you fall. Its a starting point. Talk to your doctor to take additional measurements if you're unsure.1 -
Since we've started with the pictures, here's my favorite:
7 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a point against the "my (insert part here) didn't shrink when I lost weight" people: you're either full of crap, didn't lose enough for it to matter, or didn't take measurements, and your body has remained relatively proportional. Even people's shoe and hat sizes decrease when losing large quantities of weight.
I don't really have a side in this "fight". Going by wrist and elbow and a random frame calculator posted the other day, I come back with small frame. But as for shoe size, I felt like throwing in my two cents.
I have lost 180+ pounds. My starting shoe size was 10W. My current shoe size? Also 10W. I cannot wear 10 regular unless they're flip-flops, and I still have to try them on to make sure the straps for my toes aren't too tight. Some of my old shoes do fit more loosely but not enough for my size and width to change. Here's an admittedly not-pretty pic of my feet. I don't think they look fat.
Edited to add: My mother, who is 5'9" and 145 lbs, also wears a 10W. We share shoes...and did even when I was 180+ pounds heavier.
4 -
That isn't a gorilla skeleton, and I'm pretty sure JaneSnowe was being sarcastic.2
-
zoeysasha37 wrote: »zoeysasha37 wrote: »
Challenge accepted. I'm going to take you up on that. I'll get hubby to take pictures of me this week. Then next Monday I will go to Planet Fitness and start working out. In 6 weeks I will post the before and after side by side so you can see the difference, okay?5 -
That's why it's my favorite.
1
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
- 232.6K 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
- 96.3K 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