Question about frame size (wrist/finger method)

eringrace95_

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?!

Russandol

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

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_

So what would be a proper/accurate method to measure body frame size??

jemhh

I don't know that there is one. I don't think it's too helpful of a designation either.

maidentl

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_

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

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

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

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_

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 I have a number in mind so we shall see

WickedPineapple

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

There's elbow breadth, they even did a study on it! http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/37/2/311.full.pdf

eringrace95_

Thanks!

segacs

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_

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

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

segacs

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

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

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

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

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

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!

suziecue20

Ta love

tcaley4

I have always heard that the body is proportional. Twice around your wrist is your neck. Twice around your neck is your waist. From finger tips across your shoulders to the other fingers tips is your height. There is also something about the size of your head to your entire body, but I can't remember it. But as said above, everybody is just a little bit different.

kdz526

I am just shy of 5'2" and my wrist is 6.5 inches. At my heaviest 50+ lbs ago, it was 6.75 inches. One does not lose much around the wrist. I doubt I will lose much more in the next 15 to 20 lbs from around my wrist. I really do think I have "large bones". My neck is 13.5 inches btw, but don't think that has much to do with any frame measuring. When I do put in my numbers to find body fat on this one site I use, it totally makes a difference to have these calculations rather then a smaller wrist and neck sizes.

segacs

tcaley4 wrote: »

I have always heard that the body is proportional. Twice around your wrist is your neck. Twice around your neck is your waist. From finger tips across your shoulders to the other fingers tips is your height. There is also something about the size of your head to your entire body, but I can't remember it. But as said above, everybody is just a little bit different.

Most of those measurements change with weight gain/loss. So no, I don't think that's true.

Arm span is proportional to height, but that's about it.

cafeaulait7

My arm span doesn't even fit. I have long legs and downright monkey arms; a short, wide-framed torso; and my extremities get tiny by the end, so ankle and wrists measure as small-boned. Instead of apple, pear, etc, we decided I'm a spider

Actually, elbow breadth did work to show that my frame is big.

I know it's big because my shoulders are very wide (and bones visible), my ribs are visible because they are so wide, and my hipbones are also visible and wide. That matters, imho, because #1, I can't fit in certain sizes dues to that. #2, the underlying musculature hanging off those wide parts is thicker, wider than in many folks, which really makes sense if you think about the attachments, etc.

There's no way my waist gets down to 23". I was very sick and got down to 85 lbs at 5'6", and my waist was not as small as many girls have at a nice weight at the same height. I still wore a larger size than many healthy, thin girls my height. Yet obviously losing weight wasn't the answer to that if I'd thought it was a problem (oh, I didn't).

I don't quite know how you figure it out if you don't have body parts that are thin and obviously larger than the norm. My extra weight gets carried on all the usual places, except you still see my ribs and shoulder bones, you know? The idea of a 28 or 30" band size for bras freaks me out, lol. They'd need a bone saw for me.

I still am lighter now than the big-boned stats give, but I'd believe that those stats are certainly healthy. The small-boned stats are a bad idea for me, unless I were looking to be at a very low BF for a woman. I just shoot for low but still with some softness, if that helps anyone. For me, that's in the middle of the healthy BMI range. That will go higher if I put on more muscle, clearly.

Russandol

evileen99 wrote: »

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.

My bad, I phrased it poorly. What I meant is that I can feel that the other bones and joints are thick/sturdy (if I measure my elbow in the manner someone upthread suggested, I come out as large-framed). My wrists are disproportionately wimpy. I've even been told that when I had to have my hand x-rayed to rule out a metacarpal fracture. So for me, measuring the wrist alone doesn't really give me an accurate reading of frame size.

cafeaulait7

With all due respect, I think evileen99 might have that reversed anyway. From what I've heard, our bone diameters are mostly the same. It's the shape of the frame they make that does make the difference, yeah.

evileen99

cafeaulait7 wrote: »

With all due respect, I think evileen99 might have that reversed anyway. From what I've heard, our bone diameters are mostly the same. It's the shape of the frame they make that does make the difference, yeah.

Nope, it's the relationship between wrist circumference and height. The width of your hips and shoulders makes no difference.

evileen99

from NIH

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"
Men:

Height over 5' 5"
Small = wrist size 5.5" to 6.5"
Medium = wrist size 6.5" to 7.5"
Large = wrist size over 7.5"

MarcyKirkton

The way I found online was to extend arm straight out. Bend at 90 degree angle. Turn hand towards body. Now, measure the distance between the 2 protruding bones in the elbow.

For me, it was 2 1/2 inches, which is medium boned for 5' 2".