Anonymous wrote:They taper in, then out= not cankles. Cankles kind of pop out at you when you see them- your ankles don't.

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A lot of people on this thread do not know what cankles are.
OP does not have big ankle bones, and/or her ankle bone is hidden under a little fat so they look soft, so maybe this is where the confusion lies. Her ankles are significantly narrower than her calves, therefore they are NOT cankles.
I remember one of my mom’s friend’s cankles. She was average height and weight, maybe in the thin side, and was a avid runner. But her calves seemed to go all the way to her feet without narrowing. Those are cankles.
You need to get your eyes checked. Her legs are a straight line from calf to what should be an ankle.
You need to get your eyes checked! Seriously, get a ruler. Significant difference. Not cankles.
Just did it on Friday which is why I can see that those are clear cankles. You have a very cleared distorted view if the human body to their their is a defined ankle there.
Anonymous wrote:I'm also on team No, OP doesn't have cankles. My husband is really fit and he has cankles. They're super ugly. Calf and ankle are the same size, no tapering in at the ankle. It was hard to look past when we first started dating.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A lot of people on this thread do not know what cankles are.
OP does not have big ankle bones, and/or her ankle bone is hidden under a little fat so they look soft, so maybe this is where the confusion lies. Her ankles are significantly narrower than her calves, therefore they are NOT cankles.
I remember one of my mom’s friend’s cankles. She was average height and weight, maybe in the thin side, and was a avid runner. But her calves seemed to go all the way to her feet without narrowing. Those are cankles.
You need to get your eyes checked. Her legs are a straight line from calf to what should be an ankle.
You need to get your eyes checked! Seriously, get a ruler. Significant difference. Not cankles.
.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A lot of people on this thread do not know what cankles are.
OP does not have big ankle bones, and/or her ankle bone is hidden under a little fat so they look soft, so maybe this is where the confusion lies. Her ankles are significantly narrower than her calves, therefore they are NOT cankles.
I remember one of my mom’s friend’s cankles. She was average height and weight, maybe in the thin side, and was a avid runner. But her calves seemed to go all the way to her feet without narrowing. Those are cankles.
You need to get your eyes checked. Her legs are a straight line from calf to what should be an ankle.
You need to get your eyes checked! Seriously, get a ruler. Significant difference. Not cankles.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They.are.freaking,cankles!!!!!!!
Agreed.
Either way, not a big deal.
Of course not. But the people twisting themselves into a pretzel pretending there is any ankle definition really need to get some help for their body dysmorphia.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A lot of people on this thread do not know what cankles are.
OP does not have big ankle bones, and/or her ankle bone is hidden under a little fat so they look soft, so maybe this is where the confusion lies. Her ankles are significantly narrower than her calves, therefore they are NOT cankles.
I remember one of my mom’s friend’s cankles. She was average height and weight, maybe in the thin side, and was a avid runner. But her calves seemed to go all the way to her feet without narrowing. Those are cankles.
You need to get your eyes checked. Her legs are a straight line from calf to what should be an ankle.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They.are.freaking,cankles!!!!!!!
Agreed.
Either way, not a big deal.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They.are.freaking,cankles!!!!!!!
Agreed.
Anonymous wrote:They.are.freaking,cankles!!!!!!!