You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Replies
-
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 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »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.htm
And that is still the same link that puts a 6'6'' guy, and a 5'5'' guy in the same pot for determining frame size.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »KetoneKaren wrote: »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.htm
And that is still the same link that puts a 6'6'' guy, and a 5'5'' guy in the same pot for determining frame size.
Oh sorry I guess0 -
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.
OK, pretend I said 1.5" instead of 3". Or 1". Or whatever.
The point I was trying to make is that I was not arguing that the weight of the bones themselves is significant, but IMO - even with relatively little difference in bone weight - the weight of the stuff that holds the bones together (and apart) can be more significant, where there's a difference in measurements, and (some) differences in measurements clearly exist.
Overwhelming differences? No. A good excuse for having lots of body fat? Way no. But a reason (among other reasons, like muscularity) that some people "should" weigh more than others, at the same height. At the same height and BF %, individuals will have different weights. Dramatically different? Probably not. 10% different? Wouldn't be surprised.5 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KetoneKaren wrote: »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.htm
And that is still the same link that puts a 6'6'' guy, and a 5'5'' guy in the same pot for determining frame size.
Oh sorry I guess
You don't have to be sorry, the people who made that medline article should be. They split up women into 3 groups with the last group starting just under average height and only give men one group that starts way below average height.
Call me crazy but last I checked, if you're taller your bones aren't just longer, they're also thicker than shorter people's. the fact that they just have one measure where
Jonathan Lipnicki at 5'5''
and Thor at 6'7''
have to have the same wrist circumference to be considered the same frame size, is ridiculous.1 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »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.
Out of curiosity I had a partner help me check my shoulders, between 17-18". Wrists still right about 6.75. My flex band is large and it has 3 open holes, tighter and it cuts off circulation.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?
Snort! (Is there a 'spitting green tea on your keyboard' emoji . . . anybody?)2 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »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.htm
Comparing numbers with this chart I have a 6.5" wrist which is on the cusp between medium and large women's frame which makes sense. I find all of this to be very interesting.
I don't quite understand the point of the OP, however, stating that there is no such thing as a "big frame". I think people know when they are overweight for their individual height and bone structure. Most don't go around blaming "big bones". Blanket statement MFP titles sure do get people riled up. Lol.2 -
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.
This is correct.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.stevencloser wrote: »What do you mean "count front plus back"?
All three of these point to a conceptual problem that's typical in this conversation. We're confusing mass with breadth and circumference.
Mass is proportional to volume. Obviously a cylindrical object with a wider breadth is going to have a greater volume than one of narrower breadth given the same height. Human bodies are rather more elliptical than circular, and of a varying width to from top to bottom to boot.
That said, the area of an ellipse is A = pi * (a) ( b), where a= (radius at maximum) and b = (radius at minimum). Finding (a) and (b) from the circumference is a bit more complicated:
C = pi * {3 (a+b) - sqrt[(3a+b)(a+3b)] }
mass = density * cross-sectional area * height
Have fun figuring the numbers out on that for any given individual. What's important here is that the radii a & b will be directly proportional to mass, and that torso length will have a greater impact mass relative to overall height. When we say a person has "broad shoulders" and discuss that impact on mass, we're using an indirect approximation of the long radius (a) in elliptical cross-section.
It also occurs to me that even dividing men vs women up into separate populations is itself an acknowledgement of frame size variations within the population of human beings. If you didn't take that division, you would find 90% of all HUMAN BEINGS would fit between 13.4 inches - 17.7 inches (it would be somewhat larger, probably more like 95% because of the low end male outliers & high end female outliers, given the nature of the bell distribution as well). However, then the radii variation would be 2.15 inches rather than 1.5, giving an even greater mass variation. Sexual dimorphism includes frame size variations. I find it odd that people would discount that other factors would lead to frame size differences. This is a 24% variation in cross-sectional area for appx. 95% of the population. Add onto that a height variation for the torso length which can be between 15"-20" (another 25% variation) and you start to see why human mass can vary by 50%! (see citation below), given mass is proportional to volume. Nor is this a modern phenomenon, it holds in archeological records as well.
Ruff, Christopher. "Variation in human body size and shape." Annual Review of Anthropology (2002): 211-232.
8 -
My point earlier in the thread was that if a person has a difference in breadth of 3" from another person then that would make a big difference, IMO, of 6" in circumference all the way around front to back (actually more due to depth since our bodies are not linear). I was fairly distracted while writing that and didn't elaborate fully and realized that when it was brought up.2
-
My point earlier in the thread was that if a person has a difference in breadth of 3" from another person then that would make a big difference, IMO, of 6" in circumference all the way around front to back (actually more due to depth since our bodies are not linear). I was fairly distracted while writing that and didn't elaborate fully and realized that when it was brought up.
For what it's worth I was agreeing with you and expanding on your point
1 -
My point earlier in the thread was that if a person has a difference in breadth of 3" from another person then that would make a big difference, IMO, of 6" in circumference all the way around front to back (actually more due to depth since our bodies are not linear). I was fairly distracted while writing that and didn't elaborate fully and realized that when it was brought up.
For what it's worth I was agreeing with you and expanding on your point Steven asked for elaboration upthread and his response to me was included in your quote. I meant to respond to him earlier to explain. You did a much better job at it than I ever could.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
Thank you! I've had more than one doctor tell me 'not to worry' about reaching the healthy BMI range, because 'these charts don't really factor in for very tall women' - so when even clinicians, who are supportive and encouraging of me losing weight, suggest the focus should not be on a generalised chart, you know there's something up. At my very lightest as an adult, in my late teens, I was 14 stone 6lbs which puts me in the 'overweight' BMI - yet still wore UK size 16 clothes and this was the first time also that a dr said to not try to lose more weight to get into the right BMI bracket. My hips stuck out and you could count my ribs - and this was at a time of zero exercise, so my weight couldn't have been down to a muscular build nor an overly high body fat percentage as I definitely looked 'skinny'.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »What kills me about all the talk of "large frame size" is most of it (or at least a disproportionate amount of it) is coming from women. Men are actually the ones most likely to be treated unfairly by the bmi tables. Men are more likely to have a truly "large frame" at any given height. BMI is actually very, very forgiving to women, "allowing" them to be as heavy as an equivalent height male and still be counted as a "normal" weight, despite having considerably more body fat (generally). I can't help but wonder, whenever a woman says bmi isn't a useful measure for her because of a large frame, is her frame really as large as a man's? Really? Because it would have to be in order for that to be true.
Yes. That's why I prefer guys much taller than me. My fiance has a foot on me. My ex is the same height and build as Dan Marino and was often confused for him.
Hi, 6'2 here. Yup, as large as a man's.0 -
Ruff, Christopher. "Variation in human body size and shape." Annual Review of Anthropology (2002): 211-232.
Thank you for this fascinating article. I just did a quick-scan and will be reading it more carefully this weekend.
1 -
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.
Looks like Medline disagrees with you...
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm
Maybe you should get in touch with [takes deep breath] .... Linda J. Vorvick, MD, Medical Director and Director of Didactic Curriculum, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, Department of Family Medicine, UW Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle ... [exhales] and tell her that she's got it all wrong and there are no differences in body frames. I'm sure she'd welcome your input...
I actually would like to get in contact with the authors of that Medline page. They forgot to include an important factor for wrist size: weight. An obese person will have a bigger wrist size than if they were thin because fat still accumulates there. At my thinnest I had a 5.25" wrist and at my heaviest it was 6.75". So if I had never been thin before I'd be going around falsely believing I had a large frame.2 -
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 mly 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.
I think there are small difference that can cause a difference of 10 pounds are so. Depending on race, it is sometimes reccommended to be at the lower end of the ideal BMI scale while others can be at the middle/higher end of healthy. Also some people have thicker wrists and such - mine are tiny, as are my hands and I am probably best at the lower end.
However, unless you have a lot of muscle, being 20-30lbs overweight is not the reccommended weight. You wouldn't lool "emaciated" at like 5'4 going below 150 no matter what people tell you. Yes, I've seen people say that.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »
And that is still the same link that puts a 6'6'' guy, and a 5'5'' guy in the same pot for determining frame size.
Oh sorry I guess[/quote]
You don't have to be sorry, the people who made that medline article should be. They split up women into 3 groups with the last group starting just under average height and only give men one group that starts way below average height.
Call me crazy but last I checked, if you're taller your bones aren't just longer, they're also thicker than shorter people's. the fact that they just have one measure where
Jonathan Lipnicki at 5'5''
and Thor at 6'7''
have to have the same wrist circumference to be considered the same frame size, is ridiculous.[/quote]
Love those pictures!
I am tall for a lady and have thin bones. So my frame size, if you are measuring by wrist (5.5" or so) is small. I cannot wear bracelets, they fall off. My frame size, if you are measuring by shoulders width, is large. My frame size, if you are measuring by hips, is average. I don't look unusual or anything, just tall and lean, it's a common build for a tallish person.
Ring size is the same as the 4'10" secretary who works at our office, and I've got nearly a foot on her. I am not convinced that height and bone width are that closely related, if you put a picture of a tall and thin guy up, he'd have smaller diameter bones.
All of those are separate moving parts. People don't just scale up as they get taller and down as they get shorter, otherwise all short people would be really small around. You can be short and compact, short and petite, tall and thick, tall and lanky, any variation.
Again - none of this refutes the fact that 99% of overweight by BMI measures is overfat, and that BMI misses more often in the other direction, classes overfat people as normal because their weight is inside the bubble.0 -
I am tall for a lady and have thin bones. So my frame size, if you are measuring by wrist (5.5" or so) is small. I cannot wear bracelets, they fall off. My frame size, if you are measuring by shoulders width, is large. My frame size, if you are measuring by hips, is average. I don't look unusual or anything, just tall and lean, it's a common build for a tallish person.
Ring size is the same as the 4'10" secretary who works at our office, and I've got nearly a foot on her. I am not convinced that height and bone width are that closely related, if you put a picture of a tall and thin guy up, he'd have smaller diameter bones...
Again - none of this refutes the fact that 99% of overweight by BMI measures is overfat, and that BMI misses more often in the other direction, classes overfat people as normal because their weight is inside the bubble.
You have a mixture with broad shoulders, medium hips, and small fingers and wrists. That is interesting.
I agree that the higher end of BMI normal scale is generous. I'm on the borderline of overweight and know that I am "overly fat" and need to lose weight! I definitely think that the comments on here support the fact that most overweight people don't use "big boned" as an excuse for allowing extra poundage.
I personally don't like the aesthetic of thin on my body frame and height but would be ecstatic to get to a bit below midrange normal BMI.
Fortunately there is a range of what people consider attractive (sometimes admittedly independent of healthy). I want to get healthy and fit!
Edited typos0 -
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.
This is correct.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.stevencloser wrote: »What do you mean "count front plus back"?
All three of these point to a conceptual problem that's typical in this conversation. We're confusing mass with breadth and circumference.
Mass is proportional to volume. Obviously a cylindrical object with a wider breadth is going to have a greater volume than one of narrower breadth given the same height. Human bodies are rather more elliptical than circular, and of a varying width to from top to bottom to boot.
That said, the area of an ellipse is A = pi * (a) ( b), where a= (radius at maximum) and b = (radius at minimum). Finding (a) and (b) from the circumference is a bit more complicated:
C = pi * {3 (a+b) - sqrt[(3a+b)(a+3b)] }
mass = density * cross-sectional area * height
Have fun figuring the numbers out on that for any given individual.
---(more good stuff snipped)---
Ruff, Christopher. "Variation in human body size and shape." Annual Review of Anthropology (2002): 211-232.
Yes, thank you for taking the time to reply in more well-considered/well-researched terms than I. (I do understand the differences between mass/volume/breadth/circumference, thus was - I hope - careful to refer to cross-sectional area, but that's admittedly a weird way to analyze a 3D body, unless you're an MRI machine (which I'm not ).)
I appreciate your clarification and (I think) support.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »KetoneKaren wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »KetoneKaren wrote: »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.htm
And that is still the same link that puts a 6'6'' guy, and a 5'5'' guy in the same pot for determining frame size.
Oh sorry I guess
and Thor at 6'7''
/slurp/
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFSvTCHPXo
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