You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Options
Replies
-
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?
How do I tell?0 -
enterdanger wrote: »I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Did you have a baby? My feet grew a shoe size with each baby even though I weigh less now than I did when I got pregnant with my first.
I did have my second child in 2011 but still wore a size 10 until 2014 when I started my weight loss journey. Interesting point though!
0 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?
How do I tell?
Your arch can collapse over time making feet flatter and wider, often requiring a size increase. I was a 9-91/2 through my early 20's and now I'm a 10 usually, 11 in some boot styles. I am pretty flat footed now and look like I have flippers instead of feet lol . . . . not cute but some things you just have to laugh off and accept.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
I hate to quote myself but since there's a whole new slew of people who haven't read through this entire thread....
4 -
I've worn a size 10 shoe my whole life until I lost 138lbs. Now I wear a size 11, and if I even attempt to squeeze into a pair of size 10's they are noticeably too tight and painful to wear. WTH? So unfair
It makes zero sense to me.. how could my feet have gotten bigger lol
Have you become more flat footed?
How do I tell?
Your arch can collapse over time making feet flatter and wider, often requiring a size increase. I was a 9-91/2 through my early 20's and now I'm a 10 usually, 11 in some boot styles. I am pretty flat footed now and look like I have flippers instead of feet lol . . . . not cute but some things you just have to laugh off and accept.
lol this is probably exactly it then. Its the only explanation, and it definitely makes sense! Thank you
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
I hate to quote myself but since there's a whole new slew of people who haven't read through this entire thread....
And I'll quote my favorite response to that:Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I didn't want to have to pull out the dexa scans, but i guess i might as well.
This woman was 5'4. Her total body weight is 100.3 pounds. She falls into the underweight category of bmi. Total Bone weight: 5.4 pounds. She has a low mineral density. Here's what her skeleton and soft tissue look like.
This woman is 5'6. her total body weight is 139 pounds. She falls into the normal category of bmi. Total bone weight? 7.8 pounds.
This woman is also 5'6. Her total body weight is 273 pounds. She falls into the obese category. Total bone weight? 6.65 pounds.
so, what is the difference in these women? It's the amount of muscle, fat, and soft tissue their body has.
their skeletons are damn near the same size.
Please don't confused body shape (which is determined by genetics, and commonly referred to as "apple/pear/banana/etc.") with your bones or "frame". they are not the same.
THIS:
this is a result of where you gain fat. This is also determined by how much muscle mass you have and where you've gained muscle. We all know about the difference between body SHAPE (based on soft tissue).
This has nothing to do with bones. These women very likely have similar bone structure.
I hate to quote myself but since there's a whole new slew of people who haven't read through this entire thread....
And I'll quote my favorite response to that:Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
and i'll respond by saying what i said then.
BONE SIZES ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT in people of a relative height. Period.
I also provided evidence for this as well. this is just nonsense and the differences you are suggesting are likely varying as much as we would to different SPECIES. which is why it's more hilarious that someone posted that reddit troll.6 -
And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "heavier" from person to person which contributes to one being "heavier" because they are just "big boned" this is bs.
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.3 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I have long legs and torso. My shoulders are broader than some women's. My mother in law, as an example, has a tiny head and can't even find small hats easily, slender wrists, small slender fingers and feet, and is frail. She appears to have a smaller frame than I do and is only a bit shorter. This is no BS. I don't think I have any "specialness" and am quite ordinary. But I can carry weight and not show it as easily as my mother in law.3 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I have long legs and torso. My shoulders are broader than some women's. My mother in law, as an example, has a tiny head and can't even find small hats easily, slender wrists, small slender fingers and feet, and is frail. She appears to have a smaller frame than I do and is only a bit shorter. This is no BS. I don't think I have any "specialness" and am quite ordinary. But I can carry weight and not show it as easily as my mother in law.
OK.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I have long legs and torso. My shoulders are broader than some women's. My mother in law, as an example, has a tiny head and can't even find small hats easily, slender wrists, small slender fingers and feet, and is frail. She appears to have a smaller frame than I do and is only a bit shorter. This is no BS. I don't think I have any "specialness" and am quite ordinary. But I can carry weight and not show it as easily as my mother in law.
Yeah it still completely baffles me that some people can't admit that we all have different frames.
And whoever say that body shapes only have to do with fat... how do you explain how different measurements are for women with low body fat then?5 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "heavier" from person to person which contributes to one being "heavier" because they are just "big boned" this is bs.
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I'm not willing to speculate what others are talking about, but what I'm talking about is that if someone has (say) 3" wider shoulders at the same height as someone else, then it will take extra pounds of muscle, connective tissue, and other body tissues and fluids generally to contain/surround/support the longer/wider bones. The weight of the bones themselves is pretty negligible, as you say.
This is not "specialness", this is just variation in body configuration.
At (probably) 20-something percent body fat at 5'5", my hips are around 34". Someone else my height at 20-something percent BF can easily have hips that are 36" (or more). If we were circular in cross-section (we're not
), that would be approximately 918 square inches of cross-sectional area for my hips, and 1018 square inches for hers, a difference of over 10%. That area is not a vacuum, if's mostly filled with muscles, blood, tendons, etc., and they have weight.
It won't be consistently 10% difference across the whole body, of course, but people have different dimensions, and those dimensions have weight consequences.
(Edited to fix typo. Why do they only show up after I post?!)9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »heatherannh23 wrote: »My best friend is less than an inch shorter than me. She also weighs less than me and has a smaller pants size by one size. Her wrists are two inches larger than mine and she often can't buy bracelets without having to get them custom made because she has 9 inch wrists. I think some people literally have larger bones. We're not all the same so why can't we have different bone structure? It doesn't sound absurd at all...
@heatherannh23 would you please double check with your friend about her wrist size? 9" sounds off to me. I bet you meant 7".
She said 9". Mine are 7" and hers are definitely larger than mine.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "heavier" from person to person which contributes to one being "heavier" because they are just "big boned" this is bs.
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I'm not willing to speculate what others are talking about, but what I'm talking about is that if someone has (say) 3" wider shoulders at the same height as someone else, then it will take extra pounds of muscle, connective tissue, and other body tissues and fluids generally to contain/surround/support the longer/wider bones. The weight of the bones themselves is pretty negligible, as you say.
This is not "specialness", this is just variation in body configuration.
At (probably) 20-something percent body fat at 5'5", my hips are around 34". Someone else my height at 20-something percent BF can easily have hips that are 36" (or more). If we were circular in cross-section (we're not ), that would be approximately 918 square inches of cross-sectional area for my hips, and 1018 square inches for hers, a difference of over 10%. That area is not a vacuum, if's mostly filled with muscles, blood, tendons, etc., and they have weight.
It won't be consistently 10% difference across the whole body, of course, but people have different dimensions, and those dimensions have weight consequences.
(Edited to fix typo. Why do they only show up after I post?!)
Why are you so amazing?
1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This is a genuine query: why would a bigger frame mean more fat/weight, outside of a small variance? Like, I can buy that some frames may be wider than others (I sure seem to have one narrower than most, if my hip measurements are anything to go by, so I can believe the opposite to be true), but I don't understand why that would translate to a significant variance in ideal body weight.
Just like muscle, bigger and denser bones contribute to weight, where one could be considered overweight by BMI standards when they aren't. The opposite is true for people with smaller than average bones. The BMI was actually modified for South Asians because, by the way of genetics, many of them could appear to be underweight by BMI standards when they aren't and can be considered overweight (with increased health risks) at a lower BMI than the average person.
From what I understand that's not how the Asian BMI chart was adapted...the underweight limit remains in place but the overweight limit moved from 25 down to I think 23 or thereabouts
My recollection is hazy of the point change but I'm fairly certain that underweight is underweight even for Asian scale
The thing about the population measure of BMI is that it's statistically relevant on a population level and incorporates general differences in bone density, frame size etc within the scaling. However the confidence interval appears to be about 75-80 which does allow for outliers by size, musculature, disability and any other confounding characteristic
Mmmm stats. ❤️❤️❤️
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "heavier" from person to person which contributes to one being "heavier" because they are just "big boned" this is bs.
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I'm not willing to speculate what others are talking about, but what I'm talking about is that if someone has (say) 3" wider shoulders at the same height as someone else, then it will take extra pounds of muscle, connective tissue, and other body tissues and fluids generally to contain/surround/support the longer/wider bones. The weight of the bones themselves is pretty negligible, as you say.
This is not "specialness", this is just variation in body configuration.
At (probably) 20-something percent body fat at 5'5", my hips are around 34". Someone else my height at 20-something percent BF can easily have hips that are 36" (or more). If we were circular in cross-section (we're not ), that would be approximately 918 square inches of cross-sectional area for my hips, and 1018 square inches for hers, a difference of over 10%. That area is not a vacuum, if's mostly filled with muscles, blood, tendons, etc., and they have weight.
It won't be consistently 10% difference across the whole body, of course, but people have different dimensions, and those dimensions have weight consequences.
(Edited to fix typo. Why do they only show up after I post?!)
I know it was just an example, but a 3'' difference in shoulder width between two people of the same sex and height is already an extreme difference that applies to barely anyone. I remember seeing it earlier in this thread when it was first made, let me dig it out.
Here it is.
The difference between the absolute upper and absolute lower end of those 90% of the population groups is just 3''.1. I agree with @rainbowbow that there aren’t usually giant differences in how broad people are
Assuming shoulder (biacromial) breadth is an ok proxy for “frame” size, based on a study of Americans between 1988 and 1994:
(a) 90% of men 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 37.3cm and 45.0cm, with an average of 41.1cm;
(b) 90% of women 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 33.4cm and 40.3cm, with an average of 36.7cm.
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.pdf)
Basically, you would expect 9 out of 10 women to have shoulders that were within 3.5cm of the average.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »And just to confirm once more....
If we're talking about bones being "heavier" from person to person which contributes to one being "heavier" because they are just "big boned" this is bs.
If we're talking about bones being "longer" from person to person of a relative height and this contributing to their *supposedly* specialness this is also BS.
The only people whose bones are interesting enough to discuss on either of these topics would be people with gigantism.
I'm not willing to speculate what others are talking about, but what I'm talking about is that if someone has (say) 3" wider shoulders at the same height as someone else, then it will take extra pounds of muscle, connective tissue, and other body tissues and fluids generally to contain/surround/support the longer/wider bones. The weight of the bones themselves is pretty negligible, as you say.
This is not "specialness", this is just variation in body configuration.
At (probably) 20-something percent body fat at 5'5", my hips are around 34". Someone else my height at 20-something percent BF can easily have hips that are 36" (or more). If we were circular in cross-section (we're not ), that would be approximately 918 square inches of cross-sectional area for my hips, and 1018 square inches for hers, a difference of over 10%. That area is not a vacuum, if's mostly filled with muscles, blood, tendons, etc., and they have weight.
It won't be consistently 10% difference across the whole body, of course, but people have different dimensions, and those dimensions have weight consequences.
(Edited to fix typo. Why do they only show up after I post?!)
I know it was just an example, but a 3'' difference in shoulder width between two people of the same sex and height is already an extreme difference that applies to barely anyone. I remember seeing it earlier in this thread when it was first made, let me dig it out.
Here it is.
The difference between the absolute upper and absolute lower end of those 90% of the population groups is just 3''.1. I agree with @rainbowbow that there aren’t usually giant differences in how broad people are
Assuming shoulder (biacromial) breadth is an ok proxy for “frame” size, based on a study of Americans between 1988 and 1994:
(a) 90% of men 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 37.3cm and 45.0cm, with an average of 41.1cm;
(b) 90% of women 20 years and older had a shoulder breadth of between 33.4cm and 40.3cm, with an average of 36.7cm.
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.pdf)
Basically, you would expect 9 out of 10 women to have shoulders that were within 3.5cm of the average.
Dude-- 3" shoulder breadth is 6" if you count front plus back. That is a lot, IMO. My front shoulders across is 17 inches from arm joint to arm joint (not counting arms) and my back shoulders across is 18 inches. This is about where a shirt seam before the sleeve starts. I don't think that is gigantic but others may have a few inches variance. We should ask some seamstresses amd tailors how much skeleton frames vary.1 -
What do you mean "count front plus back"?2
-
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/6/1012/T1.expansion.html This thread got me curious, so I did a quick Google. This was an interesting summary of averages.
And a video on how measurements were done to find those averages:
I pulled out the measuring tape. Obviously no professional with calipers around, but I had a little help. Assuming you measure from about yellow dot to yellow dot and try not to go beyond bone borders, and with measurements from both the front (DIY) and back (helper) with the tape held straight like a ruler rather than curving against the skin, I came up with 39-42 cm (15.35-16.54 in) for myself. Could very well be 40cm or less and within the top of the women's chart. Just what I could come up with at home.
No matter how I measure, my wrists are still an even 6" in circumference. I have one hole left in my Fitbit large band before it gets too big.
2 -
It's all relative. The difference between small, medium and large frames are measurable and defined. Might not seem like very much of a difference, but it doesn't mean it's not real.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFSvTCHPXo
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions