Statement “I’m not fat, I’m big-boned!”
Rebuttal: “Ever seen a big-boned skeleton?”
Given 100 skeletons of the same height, is it generally possible to make some deductions about the weight of their previous owners? For instance, are some skeletons noticably more robust than others? To the point where the average non-medical type could look at it and say, “Hey, that person really was big-boned!” To what extent can chronic obesity actually increase bone density, and would such an increase result in visually larger bones, or would they be normal-appearing structures with more mass?
Yes, I have, and yes anthropologists can make those deductions based on the exact measurements of particular bony diameters and the prominence of areas that muscles attach to. The average Joe looking and saying such? Probably not.
I am not fat or even overweight by BMI standards. Nevertheless it is of note that my second oldest son and I have the same exact waist size but I weigh 20 to 30 pounds more than him while being an inch shorter. My wrist diameter is about 1 1/2 inch wider and I forget how much bigger we measured by rib cage. Yes, I exercise much more, including weights, and have much more muscle mass, but those differences are skeletal. He is built like my wife’s father was and I am built like my Dad was. Short legs but the trunk of someone much taller; a poor build for almost any sport unfortunately.
Ha! Same thing with me: body of a viking, legs of a hobbit. I have the torso of someone about 6’ tall but I’m 5’6". I don’t even bother checking inseams when I buy pants–I’m just going to hem them up anyway.
Another thing I meant to ask in the OP: What’s the weight difference between a heavy skeleton and a light one?
I don’t think having a large frame makes one fat. I happen to have a large frame and am fat. My hands are huge, my wrists are huge and I wear a size 10.5 men’s wide shoe. But I know plenty of girls with tiny feet and hands who are overweight. Just being fat doesn’t make you have a larger frame.
Conversely my dad shares the large-framed trait and he is what anyone would consider a skinny man.
I told my doctor once that I had a weight goal of 165 for my 5’8" frame. He said no fucking way could I ever be 165, knowing my frame and muscles. According to this chart there are 3 frame sizes for women.
So when someone says “I’m not fat, I’m big boned” they can be telling the truth. Your sister could be 5’8" and small-framed and weigh 130 and it works good for her. If you met a woman who was 5’8" and 150 and have the same or less bodyfat percentage and would weigh more than your sister because she is “big boned” not because she has 20lb more fat than her.
Likewise…I’m 5’ 10", with a 30" inseam (most other guys I know who have that kind of inseam are around 5’ 6"). I have a friend with the opposite issue (long limbs, short torso)…we joke that, if we could swap body parts, we could build a basketball player and a hobbit.
This is a family trait; we’re all thin but heavy for our size - I joke that I have “heavy bones” because like my parents and sibs, I am relatively skinny (size 6-8/petite U.S.) at 5’ 6 1/2" inches tall I’ve weighed between 145-150 lb with a BMI of 21 or under since the 1970s. My father was 5’ 10" and very fit, but weighed about 190.
I know this doesn’t exactly answer the OP, but some individuals are genetically programmed to have more natural muscle weight, which is easily misinterpreted as “big bones.”
Ha! I’m 6’ (5’11.5" is probably more accurate), and I have a 29" inseam. And the tips of my fingers are just a couple of inches above my knees when I stand up straight.
Some sports in which you may have an advantage though: swimming, gymnastics, certain forms of fighting such as judo, possibly boxing. And, not really a sport, but it’s a good body type for breakdancing
I’m not sure how to explain this, but there’s the size of the frame, as well as the size of the actual bones. I was in college with a girl who had a tiny frame - like a kid’s. I’m average-framed, we’re the same height, and her rib cage was maybe two-thirds the circumference of mine; her hips and shoulders were maybe two-thirds the width of mine - not because she had less fat on there, but because the underlying framework was narrower. We were both slim/normal weight, but I’d bet she weighed fifteen or twenty pounds less than I did - and that, if she’d weighed the same as me, she’d have been overweight, while at her weight I’d have been underweight.
If someone were to dig up her skeleton in a few centuries, then yeah, I’d say any non-medical type would be able to look at it and say she was small-boned.
I can also think of people who are built the opposite way - the underlying skeletal framework is just bigger, wider, so they’re going to look chunkier than me, for example, even if they don’t have any more fat. That’s what I think of when I hear ‘big-boned’.
I worked with a woman who was largish-framed but who was not fat. If she had been taller, she would have been described as statuesque perhaps. But because she was just slightly above average in height, she looked fatter than she was, with broad shoulders, wide neck, and solid legs.
I’ve been fat for the last few years, but I’ve been big boned all my life. Ten pounds at birth, and when I reached my full height I weighed at least 20 pounds more than I looked, even when I had a six-pack. Also sank like a rock in a swimming pool, even with lungs full of air.
I’m fairly sure bone structure (not the thickness of the bones themselves, but the overall arrangement) can spread; isn’t there room for movement there? After all, your rib cage moves when you breath. I imagine the rib cage can expand with exercise, and the shoulders can become wider. I don’t think it’s all locked solidly into place; it certainly moves as you grow up.
…of course I’m fat, too. And I need to work on that.
A few years back when I joined a health club they offered a 30 minute session with a “fitness coach”, or something like that. I signed up. It was basically half an hour with a fitness coach (and to my chagrin, my “coach” was a gorgeous, fit woman) who had you strip to underwear, did caliper fat measurements all over, weighed you, measured your height, and then told you what you should weigh.
Now, I’m male and 6’0 tall. BMI tells me I should be about 180 lbs to be normal, and that’s what I went in thinking. After getting pinched and prodded and weighed, the coach told me - “well, your lean body mass is about 210 lbs. Try to get down to about 220-230, that’s a good goal.”
That was surprising. But looking up body frames, yeah, I have a few of characteristics that correspond with a large frame.
Huge head. Well, not freakishly huge, but my hats start at XL and only go up.
The ol’ middle finger / thumb around the wrist. Mine don’t touch by a decent length.
Your typical store-bought XL shirt/jacket will button fine across the belly (where I am honestly fat) but way too small in the shoulders. Like if I cross my arms hard I will rip the shirt across the back.
So yeah, I am fat, and this is not an excuse. I need to lose about 30 lbs. But I do honestly have a big frame, and this affects what the charts say I “should” weigh.
Having thicker wrists and knees and “relative sitting height” (trunk length compared to total height, i.e. how stubby the legs are) was correlated with a higher BMI for the same percent body fat. “Slender” skeletal structure (thinner wrists and knees, smaller ratio sitting height to total height, i.e. longer legs, was correlated with a higher body fat percent for the same BMI.
BMI is an easy to use approximate proxy for body fat percent but it is not a perfect one. Far from it.
This does not mean that some do not use “big bones” as a silly excuse.
Actually swimmers are much better off being long and lanky. Long strokes and hydrodymanically efficient. They are built like speedboats cutting through the water with hardly a ripple; I’m more like an icebreaker.
My Dad (who had the same frame) was a highly accomplished amatuer boxer though. I wrestled in High School and having to look up at weigh ins was not so good; in lock-ups (arms on each others necks and shoulders) they could just reach down to grab my legs and for me it was a long shot to go in for a take down. I did not win much!
IIRC, I read once that the comon height-weight charts were put together by the US military, and were for extremely fit and healthy and very active 20yo’s.
As a 5’10" maile, the charts say I should be 150 to 160. When I ran 3 miles a day (at about a 5 to 6 minute mile) I did not get below 175. When I was cross-country skiing 15KM twice a week at about age 35, I got down to 212lb. 165lb?? Dream on. When I did the Atkins, I plateau’ed at 208 and went from 38 waist to 33. Like Kenobi I have short legs, 30-inch inseam.
OTOH, look at the people who star on weight-loss commercials. some women go from size 20 dress to size 6 (wow!). Of course, odds are these women go back up a ways Kirsti-Alley style once they hit a bottom number. But they have the bonerack to support a much smaller shape. Perhaps, the padding just makes the skeleton seem bigger than it really is.
I doubt that. The military (or at least the Air Force) does not use weight-height charts, and BMI tends to be inaccurate for very fit people, especially muscular types. For instance, my husband (Air Force) is considered obese by BMI standards, but scored a 98.5% on his recent military fitness test, and is clearly not fat.
Being fat does not make you have a larger skeleton, but having a large skeleton makes you weigh more than someone with a smaller skeleton and the same height and fat %.
And having a long torso, wide hips and tiny wrists makes you impossible to fit into weight charts according to my internist
The long torso and short, thick legs build is known in some places as “a walker’s build”, btw: we’re not very good at running, but we do tend to be good at walking fast for a long time.
