Question about frame size (wrist/finger method)

Options
eringrace95_
eringrace95_ Posts: 296 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Firstly, is it accurate?

Secondly, is it with the index or middle finger that you have to wrap around the smallest part of the wrist?

I find that when I do it with my middle finger, the thumb overlaps the middle finger nail but when I use my index finger it only overlaps a tiny bit

So am I medium or small frame?!
«1

Replies

  • Russandol
    Russandol Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    I find that for me, it's wildly inaccurate. I have tiny wrists (I can get each pair of fingers to touch, even thumb and pinkie), but broad shoulders and hips (definitely not a small frame, and yes, I'm talking wide bones here). It might work for others if they want to gauge frame size, though.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,177 Member
    Options
    Russandol wrote: »
    I find that for me, it's wildly inaccurate. I have tiny wrists (I can get each pair of fingers to touch, even thumb and pinkie), but broad shoulders and hips (definitely not a small frame, and yes, I'm talking wide bones here). It might work for others if they want to gauge frame size, though.

    Yeah ... I'm not sure it really means anything.

    I've got teensy tiny wrists ... as in, I can still wear a little gold bracelet I was given when I was 2 or 3 years old. It's a little bit snugger than it was back then, but I could still wear it out or to work if I wanted. And I've got really long, slender fingers. So I can not only get each pair of fingers to touch, I can overlap them all.

    And yet I've got fairly wide hips and shoulders.

  • eringrace95_
    eringrace95_ Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    So what would be a proper/accurate method to measure body frame size??
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    I don't know that there is one. I don't think it's too helpful of a designation either.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    I think it's inaccurate. At my smallest, my fingers overlapped, at my biggest they didn't touch. Now that I'm somewhere in the middle, they meet. Personally, I'm not sure I buy into "frame size." We're all built differently as mentioned above. Many overweight people are fond of thinking they're "big boned" but the reality is that you won't know what you've got under there until you lose the weight and see what a healthy weight looks like on you.
  • eringrace95_
    eringrace95_ Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    I don't know that there is one. I don't think it's too helpful of a designation either.

    I'm just trying to find my "ideal weight" and a lot of them take into account body type hmmmm.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    ErinSot wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    I don't know that there is one. I don't think it's too helpful of a designation either.

    I'm just trying to find my "ideal weight" and a lot of them take into account body type hmmmm.

    BMI takes your height into account, if you're picking a random number to shoot for. I would aim for the top of your healthy BMI range and then when you reach that you can decide if you're happy or want to keep going.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    I doubt your ideal weight is something you can find on a website. You'll get what is a pretty wide range and, chances are, your ideal weight is somewhere in that range.
  • TheopolisAmbroiseIII
    TheopolisAmbroiseIII Posts: 197 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    Better way is to find your BF%, and calculate what you would weigh at a healthier BF%. This can be a huge range, depending on what you want to look like. For women, anywhere from 10%-30% where 10% is "essential fat for health" and 30% is "upper end of average, not quite obese".

    There's a variety of ways to calculate your body fat percentages, of varying degrees of difficulty and accuracy. Even an impedance based unit like some bathroom scales will give you a wild ballpark, which might be accurate or might be thrown off by dehydration, etc.

  • eringrace95_
    eringrace95_ Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    I doubt your ideal weight is something you can find on a website. You'll get what is a pretty wide range and, chances are, your ideal weight is somewhere in that range.

    Alright, thanks :smile: I have a number in mind so we shall see
  • WickedPineapple
    WickedPineapple Posts: 698 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    I found this awhile back and it goes by wrist measurement. However, I will point out that my wrist measurement decreased when I lost weight, so I'd think it'd only be accurate if you're already at a normal/healthy weight.

    https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

    Women:

    Height under 5'2"
    Small = wrist size less than 5.5"
    Medium = wrist size 5.5" to 5.75"
    Large = wrist size over 5.75"

    Height 5'2" to 5' 5"
    Small = wrist size less than 6"
    Medium = wrist size 6" to 6.25"
    Large = wrist size over 6.25"

    Height over 5' 5"
    Small = wrist size less than 6.25"
    Medium = wrist size 6.25" to 6.5"
    Large = wrist size over 6.5"
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    There's elbow breadth, they even did a study on it! http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/37/2/311.full.pdf
  • eringrace95_
    eringrace95_ Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    Thanks!
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    My wrist measurement decreased when I lost weight, too. But it went from very small (5.25") to extra-teeny-tiny (5"). I'm 5'1".

    My shoe size decreased too, frustratingly enough.

    As for having bigger hips, I'm a pear so mine are bigger as well. But I still have a small frame. And tiny shoulders.

  • eringrace95_
    eringrace95_ Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    I'm 5"3.75 and currently 141.3 pounds which puts me in the healthy BMI range but I'd like to get closer to the middle of the healthy BMI range so in thinking 115-119 for my end goal
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    Right, that's it...just measured my wrist and it's 6"....as I'm only 5ft tall that means I'm large framed...great, that means I only have to lose enough to be in the top of my healthy weight range B)
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Right, that's it...just measured my wrist and it's 6"....as I'm only 5ft tall that means I'm large framed...great, that means I only have to lose enough to be in the top of my healthy weight range B)

    Frame size is overrated as a way of determining ideal weight. Bones don't comprise a very large portion of our weight regardless. It has much more to do with muscle vs. fat than it does with frame size.

    If you're quite muscular / athletic, it's likely that being at the top of the healthy BMI range (or even above that) is perfectly fine for you. If you have relatively low muscle mass for your size, then you may find yourself getting down to the bottom of your weight range and still feeling flabby -- at which point you probably want to be focusing on gaining muscle, not on losing more weight.

    Frame size is a factor, sure. Just don't overstate its importance. You'll know what weight range you feel comfortable at when you get there.
  • evileen99
    evileen99 Posts: 1,564 Member
    Options
    Russandol wrote: »
    I find that for me, it's wildly inaccurate. I have tiny wrists (I can get each pair of fingers to touch, even thumb and pinkie), but broad shoulders and hips (definitely not a small frame, and yes, I'm talking wide bones here). It might work for others if they want to gauge frame size, though.

    They're talking about the general diameter or thickness of the bones, not their width, so frame size doesn't have anything to do with breadth of shoulders or hips.
  • suziecue20
    suziecue20 Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    segacs wrote: »
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    Right, that's it...just measured my wrist and it's 6"....as I'm only 5ft tall that means I'm large framed...great, that means I only have to lose enough to be in the top of my healthy weight range B)

    Frame size is overrated as a way of determining ideal weight. Bones don't comprise a very large portion of our weight regardless. It has much more to do with muscle vs. fat than it does with frame size.

    If you're quite muscular / athletic, it's likely that being at the top of the healthy BMI range (or even above that) is perfectly fine for you. If you have relatively low muscle mass for your size, then you may find yourself getting down to the bottom of your weight range and still feeling flabby -- at which point you probably want to be focusing on gaining muscle, not on losing more weight.

    Frame size is a factor, sure. Just don't overstate its importance. You'll know what weight range you feel comfortable at when you get there.

    I was being a bit 'tongue in cheek'. When I do lose another 30lbs I will definitely re-evaluate my goal. Also as I am 67 I'm quite sure I'll end up a bit crinkly but hey we can't have everything.

    I think with women one guiding factor regarding frame size is the pelvic birth canal. I know mine is quite wide so that also makes me think I'm not a small frame.

  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    suziecue20 wrote: »
    I was being a bit 'tongue in cheek'. When I do lose another 30lbs I will definitely re-evaluate my goal. Also as I am 67 I'm quite sure I'll end up a bit crinkly but hey we can't have everything.

    Hey. You earned those crinkles. Wear 'em with pride, girl! :)

Categories