So - Is There Such A Thing As Different Builds/Bone Structures?
Graelwyn75
Posts: 4,404 Member
I know the whole ectomorph/Mesomorph/Endomorph thing is a load of nonsense but I am wondering, given the BMI ranges for each height are so broad, do people really have different bone structures/builds? I am asking because I have noticed that people of the same height and weight can appear entirely different in terms of whether they appear healthy/thin/chubby etc. For example, when I am at the bottom of the weight range for my height, I become very bony and can see my ribs/hipbones, but someone else the same height and weight will look fairly healthy.
4
Replies
-
Yes, bone structure/builds are different for people of the same height.
Not sure I'd actually use the classification of small, medium and large but there are differences in both bone thickness and length.
11 -
Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.5
-
Of course there is a difference in bone structure. People of the same height can have diffetent widths. Some have very narrow shoulders, some wide. The same can be said for ribs and hips. If you have wider shoulders, ribs and hips your skeleton will be heavier and the reverse could be said for someone of a narrow structure the more bone you have the more skin etc you have also. If they both weighed the same they would look considerably different for this reason alone.
However, two people could still be exactly the same with hip and bone structure and look different. It also can depend on your ratio of fat to muscle. Muscle is denser than fat. 1 pound of fat takes up much more space than 1 pound of muscle. This is why atheles are often classified as overweight on the BMI. They can be skinny but as they are very muscular they weigh more than a typical person.7 -
Not only are there differences in bone thickness (which is actually fairly minimal IIRC), there are also differences in skeletal structure, amount of muscle mass, origin/insertion points of muscles and fat distribution patterns.
A lot of changes can be made in body composition/appearance by diet and training, but genetics will play a large part in the end results.5 -
Yes, absolutely. Fat distribution varies as well (android vs gynoid.)3
-
I have a large frame http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp and the only time I've had a BMI as low as 24 was after 6 weeks of undereating and overexercising during boot camp. When I first arrived there, I had to get boots and hats from the men's side of the uniforms room because there weren't any big enough in women's. At 5'6", I'm not especially tall.
I've always had a hard time buying bracelets. I wear men's shoes as often as I can get away with it.
My goal is to get back into my skinny jeans from when I was a full time yoga teacher, which will have me at a Low Overweight BMI, and I'm ok with that.0 -
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.2 -
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underweight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.2 -
Graelwyn75 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underweight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.
You know that most people consider 34" hips small, right? And at 18.5-18.7, yes, you're right on the edge of being underweight.
It might be worth listening to your trainer, and others around you. Body dysmorphia is a beast, and another b word. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in that that we can't see what's the reality.
9 -
collectingblues wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underweight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.
You know that most people consider 34" hips small, right? And at 18.5-18.7, yes, you're right on the edge of being underweight.
It might be worth listening to your trainer, and others around you. Body dysmorphia is a beast, and another b word. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in that that we can't see what's the reality.
This. Your weight is very much on low end of what's healthy. If, as you say, you have broad shoulders then you are underweight. Why are you trying to maintain such a low weight? Is it for a sport?4 -
Graelwyn75 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underw.eight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.
IMO, it's truly individual. I consider my 34" hips small, and I am not completely devoid of muscle, at 19-20 BMI.
I don't really even understand the idea of ideal weight outside of feeling & looking, though I suppose there's optimum health somewhere in there. But I don't know how you'd begin to measure that individualistically.2 -
Some people even have more or fewer bones and/or muscles! I can't remember the details off hand but there are a few different ones this can happen with lol.1
-
Graelwyn75 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underweight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.
The best that I know is to measure body fat and skeletal muscle and go from there. We know what healthy and unhealthy levels of body fat are, and we have an idea of desired amount of muscle mass.
There are emotional and behavioral factors as well, and, obviously those are going to be harder for non-professionals to ascertain.
If someone is eating appropriately, and exercising appropriately, and lifting weights, and is not taking extreme measures to maintain a very low weight, then that argues in favor of someone who just has a naturally lean and wiry physique.
Conversely, I have worked with people who looked healthy and muscular, but who were following extreme diet and exercise routines to achieve that look and had body image issues and were suffering negative physical effects from their lifestyle habits.
From a health standpoint, one’s “best” body weight (and composition) is a level that is associated with a low risk for future health problems. It’s a pretty wide range, and it includes body fat levels (e.g. 25%-30%) where people might not feel they look their best or feel most comfortable. Ideal physical appearance and sports performance are not necessary for one to be at a healthy weight.
7 -
Yes, there are different bone structures. For example, I have wide-ish hips and shoulders. Even when my weight has been classified as borderline "underweight" on the BMI scale (5'6" and 116 lbs), I have never been able to fit into the really small sizes ... in fact, in North American sizes, the lowest I've been able to fit into was an 8, and I suspect there was some vanity sizing involved in that. My hip bones just will not fit into anything super-small.0
-
Yes, there are different bone structures. For example, I have wide-ish hips and shoulders. Even when my weight has been classified as borderline "underweight" on the BMI scale (5'6" and 116 lbs), I have never been able to fit into the really small sizes ... in fact, in North American sizes, the lowest I've been able to fit into was an 8, and I suspect there was some vanity sizing involved in that. My hip bones just will not fit into anything super-small.
I'm 5'7" and wear size 4 at 128 pounds, or sometimes a 2 in vanity sizing. Fairly narrow hips, obviously, and an apple type fat distribution that keeps that which is covered by a pair of mid-rise jeans on the lean side. I have to go up at least a size on pants that fit at my natural waist, though, because I have the same problem with my short thick waist that you do with your wide hip bones. It's hard to find anything that fits at the waist without being baggy in the seat and thighs.
2 -
Yes, there are different bone structures. For example, I have wide-ish hips and shoulders. Even when my weight has been classified as borderline "underweight" on the BMI scale (5'6" and 116 lbs), I have never been able to fit into the really small sizes ... in fact, in North American sizes, the lowest I've been able to fit into was an 8, and I suspect there was some vanity sizing involved in that. My hip bones just will not fit into anything super-small.
I'm 5'7" and wear size 4 at 128 pounds, or sometimes a 2 in vanity sizing. Fairly narrow hips, obviously, and an apple type fat distribution that keeps that which is covered by a pair of mid-rise jeans on the lean side. I have to go up at least a size on pants that fit at my natural waist, though, because I have the same problem with my short thick waist that you do with your wide hip bones. It's hard to find anything that fits at the waist without being baggy in the seat and thighs.
Yes ... and if it fits me in the waist, my hips aren't getting in it! I wear a lot of skirts and especially skirts with a bit of flare.0 -
collectingblues wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underweight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.
You know that most people consider 34" hips small, right? And at 18.5-18.7, yes, you're right on the edge of being underweight.
It might be worth listening to your trainer, and others around you. Body dysmorphia is a beast, and another b word. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in that that we can't see what's the reality.
This^^
Being on the edge of underweight, and having a "fair amount of muscle" doesnt really make sense. Muscle mass will make you heavier for your size, and your bmi would be higher than expected if that were the case.11 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Graelwyn75 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Yes of course. That's why there is a range. I look healthy and fit at the top of the BMI range (160) where smaller built women would not. I have broad shoulders, big hips, a big rib cage, a big head, big hands, etc. I haven't been at the bottom (128) ever but I don't think I would look healthy at all.
And I'm totally the opposite. Well, I do have wide shoulders, but narrow hip width and no breasts (mastectomies). I look best - not bony or skinny - near the low end of the BMI range (19-20). I was noticeably fat near the top end.
I haven't seen a simple frame-classification method that's anything but nonsense yet, but there are definitely meaningful differences in people's configurations.
I have fairly broad shoulders also, but even when I was once underweight, my hips did not get that small, and are currently 34". My body, in the past, tended to settle at a BMI of around 20, but am currently 18.5-18.7. Although not underweight by BMI standards, a few people, including a trainer, have said I am underweight, so I am assuming it is due to my having a fair amount of muscle. I wish there was a way to gauge, beyond how you feel and how you look, the best weight as an individual.
You know that most people consider 34" hips small, right? And at 18.5-18.7, yes, you're right on the edge of being underweight.
It might be worth listening to your trainer, and others around you. Body dysmorphia is a beast, and another b word. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in that that we can't see what's the reality.
This^^
Being on the edge of underweight, and having a "fair amount of muscle" doesnt really make sense. Muscle mass will make you heavier for your size, and your bmi would be higher than expected if that were the case.
It is what my ex trainer said recently. By fair amount, I mean that I have little body fat but have retained muscle from the training I used to do(when my current profile picture was actually current), not that I have lots of prominent muscles. I suppose a few recent photographs might better illustrate what I mean by that. I don't mean I have lots of muscle. I mean that most of what I do have left now is muscle ? But your view may differ.
0 -
There's definitely a difference! When I've been towards the bottom of my weight range I've been told I could stand to lose half a stone. It wasn't in a mean way, I just have a small bone structure so the 'healthy' weight looked heavy on me. That was at about 125 lbs at 5 ft 6. Currently I am actually underweight. I'm not saying it is healthy but looking at me, you wouldn't say 'oh she looks really underweight', in fact my friend was shocked when I told her how much I weigh. I would like to gain some muscle and gain weight from it but my weight looks right on my body so even though by BMI standards it's very little, I eat well and get enough nutrients, I feel energetic and my doctor isn't concerned.
I have a friend who looks pretty similar to me in terms of how slim we look. She has a bigger chest but that's really the only difference you'd notice from looking at us. Yet she weighs 2 and a half stone more. And I don't think ALL that weight comes from her boobs
1 -
Yes bone density plays a vital roll in weight. Genetics from are ancestors are where our weight is planted.
You can take 2 exact same size and height of people as well as wear same size of clothing but the weight can be vastly different.0 -
Yes.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I'd like to gently point out that there's quite a difference between having a lot of muscle and not having much body fat.
For example, I'm someone who has a fair bit of muscle tissue built up in her calves and thighs (a good bit is genetic, a good bit was built up during puberty), and yes, while there's some fat there, my thighs will never be super slim because of that.
Even just seeing different bodies, you can see differences in musculature. Some people have more muscle tissue than others, and will just be larger. This isn't even taking into account bone density.
So, yes.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'd like to gently point out that there's quite a difference between having a lot of muscle and not having much body fat.
For example, I'm someone who has a fair bit of muscle tissue built up in her calves and thighs (a good bit is genetic, a good bit was built up during puberty), and yes, while there's some fat there, my thighs will never be super slim because of that.
Even just seeing different bodies, you can see differences in musculature. Some people have more muscle tissue than others, and will just be larger. This isn't even taking into account bone density.
So, yes.
Yes I understand that. I was not sure how to describe my current composition. Only know my ex trainer said that I am currently just muscle and bone and have retained muscle from when I trained very intensely with him in the past.
0 -
Foot size varies greatly even at the same height; it follows that other bone structures do as well. I don't know how helpful the "wrist test" is for women though, and it seems to be the one most charts use.
A friend who used to be obese but is now very lean said that his bone structure is broad because he was a fat child, and his skeleton structure grew with him during puberty to support his body. I'm not sure what science says about it, but it seems to make sense.
Overall, unless you are an anomaly and/or very muscular, charts/BMI are helpful. But measuring body fat with calipers or a scan is a much more individualized approach that I think ultimately will tell you far more about your "ideal" weight than other approaches.0 -
Yes people can be built very differently. I'm short and but have a very large torso width wise. My ribs and hips are huge. My doctor has commented that my rib cage is huge for my size but it's normal it's healthy. My waist is about 27-28 inches and that's the smallest it will go there's no fat on my ribs or anything but my hips on the other hand I had a baby so my hips widened out a lot. I have some fat on my hips, not much but my hips is probably about 36 inches. So when I put my measurements in for my BMI I know it can't be correct because I'm just big boned. I can't imagine the body mass index is completely right.0 -
A few months ago I did wrist and elbow measurements to determine frame size that I found on several online sites. I know it's not rocket science but it was pretty accurate for me. I expected that I was medium-framed and the measurements supported that. Since you're measuring areas that don't have a lot of fat it likely doesn't change even with weight loss and gain.
Without measuring, this is an even more unscientific method - but also accurate for me (mine touch exactly).
Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.2 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.
I reckon I'm medium framed but have massive hands
I'm on the small end of what my body can comfortably take, and wear an 8-10 in UK clothes, generally a 4 in the US and my favourite jeans are actually a US 2 (THANKS AE!).
But next to the wiry little cycling and ultra-running women who I would class as small-framed, I look like an absolute heffalump.
And next to my 6ft Amazonian rowing friends I look miniature...
There's definitely a range!
0 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »A few months ago I did wrist and elbow measurements to determine frame size that I found on several online sites. I know it's not rocket science but it was pretty accurate for me. I expected that I was medium-framed and the measurements supported that. Since you're measuring areas that don't have a lot of fat it likely doesn't change even with weight loss and gain.
Without measuring, this is an even more unscientific method - but also accurate for me (mine touch exactly).
Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.
Not universal. My fingers barely meet, despite giant hands, because I have huge wrists.
Large frame? Nope. 34" hips and no breasts trumps wrist/hand size. The important body parts are small-frame-sized. I look fine at 5'5" and 120 pounds (BMI 20).
Well, a little ape-like on account of those hands & wrists, but not bony or skinny.
5 -
I can get my thumb and middle finger to overlap slightly, but I have a very large frame- shoulders so wide that structured shirts are a challenge. Fingers and wrists big enough that it's almost impossible to get a woman's pair of gloves to fit me, and a very big ribcage, long arms and legs. I agree with @cs2thecox - I must have massive hands!1
-
I once did the elbow and wrist measurements and whilst my wrist came out as small boned, my elbow came out as medium. I also have quite large knee joints. I must admit, I have always loathed my build... fairly broad shoulders, calves that are naturally muscular and yes, I have a pretty broad ribcage. I always bemoaned the fact I couldn't be petite, but it is what it is. I also hate being tall, lol.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions