Submitted by Dr-Logan t3_yhb1b8 in askscience
That and having muscle that looks like fat. Can that genuinely happen? Is that a thing?
Comments
Croussie t1_iudepz4 wrote
Yes a person can be big boned but it is quite not as common as we think it is and most people that claim they are "big boned" are usually just fat. I'm fat myself even though I have big muscles too but I am certainly a fatty. Honestly only a doctor who can do the right examinations will be able to say you are fat, muscular or big boned but you can always compare your wrist bone with others, pretty much the only bone that will still stick out even though someone is fat.
goodnewsonlyhere t1_iudiwjl wrote
Definitely some people’s skeletons are bigger than others. For example, I wear size 11 shoes (us/canada sizing) - my feet bones are much bigger than someone who wears size 6. My shoulders are also much broader than most people’s shoulders. I would say I’m big boned for sure. But also I have more fat on my body than I should lol.
[deleted] t1_iuec873 wrote
[removed]
NakoL1 t1_iueh5uq wrote
Yes, but—such skeletal differences only amount to 2-3 BMI units or so
There are genetic differences in muscle mass as well. For instance men tend to have much more upper body (shoulders/arms) muscle mass than women, but there are similar differences between individuals too. Again this can amount to 2-3 BMI units
That's why some people have a baseline BMI of 18, whereas others will have a baseline BMI of 25. That's quite exceptional though, for most people 20-23 will be normal
chazwomaq t1_iueqhsg wrote
>Yes, but—such skeletal differences only amount to 2-3 BMI units or so
>
>...
>
>That's why some people have a baseline BMI of 18, whereas others will have a baseline BMI of 25. That's quite exceptional though, for most people 20-23 will be normal
This is really interesting. Do you have sources for this you can share?
someonesomewheredoin t1_iuetgzm wrote
For those unaware, the whole "body type" thing came straight off pseudoscience (somatotype and constitutional psychology).
fliguana t1_iuewi81 wrote
The quackery refers to the link between a body type and personality traits. Body types are real. Personality traits are also real.
Same with phrenology. It's quackery, but you can still have objectively pointy head, or short temper.
chrispg26 t1_iuey2fb wrote
Maybe not bones specifically, but some people aren't meant to have tiny frames. BMI was a theory designed over 300 years ago and it only included white men. Something I thought interesting was when I broke my forearm, the ortho asked me if I had ever broken my bone before because it was bigger(thicker?) Than normal. I had not broken any bones prior. When bones heal they heal more strongly and can be bigger after healing.
Connect_Eye_5470 t1_iuezk5j wrote
The short answer is yes. You've seen it yourself if you think about it. Ever notice an adult with extremely 'fine boned ' hands, wrists, and feet? Then people with a wrist it would take both your hands to wrap around and a fist the size of your skull? There is no real fat or musculature in those areas, thus that IS a difference in skeletal size and density. Now that term is usually just mis-used to describe someone overweight.
Connect_Eye_5470 t1_iuezu5y wrote
Not always and you know that's true if you just think about it. Have you ever met someone with enormous wrists and hands for their size? The body-type really doesn't matter there.
[deleted] t1_iuf15n6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuf449u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuf6fbo wrote
[removed]
fliguana t1_iufbqvg wrote
Yes, BMI is grossly inaccurate for fitness estimates.
Bodybuilders in show condition have 2-3% body fat, and a BMI of 35+. They are not fat, but have big dense muscles.
BMI may be generally ok to use for young people who do not exercise and don't have physically demanding work or hobbies.
For male members or the high school chess club, high BMI is likely to select overweight kids, but you can also just look, ffs
[deleted] t1_iufc7kv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iufjeb1 wrote
[removed]
orange_cactuses t1_iug1u9v wrote
Body types are real, especially when relating to skeletal structure. For ex. Some men have naturally wider shoulders by clavicle length not by muscularity.
cl174 t1_iug4eaq wrote
People definitely have varying amounts of fat outside of their ribs or abdominal wall where you could probably call them big bones or small boned based on the composition. Although I think if you were to do a bunch of full body CTs of people, I think you would probably find that most people that are “big boned” are probably closer to normal portions than the people that are “small boned”
But as someone who has seen a lot of full body CT scans, the small skeleton in very large layers of tissue outside of the rib cage definitely exists, but that’s probably the notably rare exception.
someonesomewheredoin t1_iug7h3b wrote
Anatomy differences are indeed real, the problem is when you start linking metabolism with anatomy without being able to back it up.
We're making steady progress in genomics, in not the so far future (maybe in 20, 30 years?), we'll be able to access it, through some sort of GWAS (genome-wide association study) and epigenetics studies -- until then, it's just some arbitrary and often subjective classification, with different meanings for different people.
I do believe that it's fine to use those terms on casual conversations, the problem comes with the random information that, usually, comes with it and sometimes can hinder people's progress (see my other comment as to why i think that, under this parent comment).
barefeet69 t1_iugvoy4 wrote
BMI is perfectly fine to use for most individuals who aren't athletes. Because the only instance it isn't a good estimate for obesity, is with high muscle mass. The vast majority of overweight people are not athletes and it's extremely unlikely that they have high muscle mass.
34Ohm t1_iugywpf wrote
Ya just like most things, it’s in a normal distribution with outliers. At both ends of the distribution the BMI measurement falls apart and doesn’t apply well (extremely skinny, extremely obese/extremely muscular). But for >95% of the population it’s a good estimate.
AgingLemon t1_iujrt0n wrote
Health researcher, body composition is a major area for me. Some individuals may have higher bone density and bone mass but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it will not account for much in someone being categorized as overweight or obese.
Muscle can be infiltrated by fat. We see that in middle aged adults and older adults who are not physically active, like a marbled steak. Equipment like dual x-ray, CT, and MRI can account for this.
Most people who are overweight or obese are truly carrying more fat than they need, and it is often times unhealthy. People shouldn’t he shamed about this, but thanks to Harvard researchers and media it is. The extra fat itself isn’t what is harmful, it is the negative metabolic consequences of that fat in influencing your blood sugar, cholesterol, inflammation, etc. Our work has shown that sometimes being a little overweight but physically active is sometimes beneficial. Think mild-moderate dad bod who is active. They’re fat but have good quality muscle and bone, their metabolism is in good shape, and the extra fat is cushion against falls and broken bones which is of high concern in the old, and the fat is a reserve in case they get cancer and undergo treatment.
[deleted] t1_iuddwik wrote
[removed]