Frame Size Inaccurate?

On CC it says to tell your frame size by putting your fingers around your wrist.  According to them I have a medium/large frame.  But that is seriously not possible. I am barely 5'2'' and my heaviest weight ever was probably like 128.  I am all around small - my hands are really small (everyone says so) I am a size 5 in shoes (which are always so hard to find grr).  So, I sort of thing it's not a great way to tell what frame size I am.. can you tell what frame size I am? Do you need more info from me?

Thank

Along the same line, I just re-did mine and now it says I have a small frame (not sure if I did it wrong before to make me a medium or if I really just changed with 20 less lbs), but does that really change anything as far as calories needed or that sort of thing.  Or is it really just more of a "get to know yourself" sort of thing?

it is actually a curiosity thing - my friend was on here and she said she has a small frame.. and i really thought she had a medium or large frame, so i was wondering about myself - always thought i had a small frame but not quite sure.

Yeah, I don't believe it either.

It's skewed for peolpe with short or long fingers.  My fingers are relatively long, and it said I had a small frame.  My sister, has stubbier fingers (but her wrists are the same measurement as mine, 6 inches around), and her's said she was large.

I would say don't worry about it.  Chances are, you generally know your frame size already.

yeah i think i'm small - at least my wrists seem to be - i keep my watch on the last hole and its not tight at all

I have found the measuring around the wrist to be a farce.. When I started cc back in January, I had a medium frame (supposedly), but after losing almost 50 lbs I am now a small!

I found playing with goal numbers and checking to see what the middle of the road healthy BMI is to be far more of a fair way to see what you want your final goal to be.

So I just did a bit of searching after seeing kaffwynn's post - my wrist also measures 6 inches and I am classified as medium... SO I went online and found this.. http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html I am 5'4" and my wrists are 6 1/4"...

PS - don't mind the am.i.fat. name.. =)

The am-i-fat tables are riddled with wrong conversion numbers, so I wouldn't trust them. For example, in one place it states 6'5" is 163mm (millimetres), but it's actually 198 cm - quite a huge discrepancy.

I have relatively thin wrists and big legs, so the wrist method doesn't work for me. It says I have a small frame, but measuring my hip and leg bones it is clear I have a medium to large frame.

Original Post by sowen222:

The am-i-fat tables are riddled with wrong conversion numbers, so I wouldn't trust them. For example, in one place it states 6'5" is 163mm (millimetres), but it's actually 198 cm - quite a huge discrepancy.

I have relatively thin wrists and big legs, so the wrist method doesn't work for me. It says I have a small frame, but measuring my hip and leg bones it is clear I have a medium to large frame.

hmmm.. thanks for pointing that one out.. I really wasn't very thorough in my search.. and what can we expect from a site called am.i.fat., right? LOL

Google "elbow breadth test"

that is the only way to tell your true frame size. You have to actually measure your bone. According to CC, Im a small frame, but when I do the elbow measurements Im  a LARGE frame. MAkes more sense to me since its obvious by just looking at me.

HMMM...let's use a little logic here.  Frame is skeleton only.  NOT meat or FAT.  Your frame does not change if you loose weight.  You do not go from a medium to a small.  You have simly dropped FAT or muscle or both from your frame (skeleton).  Therefore, using logic, these frame tests are only good measuring bones and not meat i.e. you need to be at an appropriate BMI prior to even considering whether or not these tests may be applicable to you.

That being said, all tests whether they be for body fat, ideal weight even BMI have there limitations.  I.E. You can be very muscular and have a higher than normal BMI.  Or you could have a good BMI and be skinny fat.

Nothing is finite.

Yeah, I have very small hands with very short fingers (so wrist measurement is inaccurate), but when I wrap around they just touch, which puts me at medium.  so if i had normal sized hands, i would definitely be a small.

....but even when I wasn't packing a few extra pounds, and was very lean and athletic as a child, you could still tell I was "big boned"...  my huge hip bones would poke out of the top of my jeans, my shoulder blades jutted out of my back when i picked up something, and i've always just had a solid build.... there is no way in hell i'm small boned. maybe medium-large.

look at my pics.  i'm solid.  i do not have a small frame.  no chance in hell.

the elbow breadth puts me at about medium, but really...

the standards state differences of millimeters from small to medium, medium to large, and we're doing this by holding our own fingers to our own elbow (squeezing the bone under the fat or lightly holding the fat around it?? that could be a centimeter or 2 difference depending on how you do it), then lowing your hand to a ruler or whatever... millimeters lost/gained midair, and you're in another category.

the best tool is your body fat% get between 15-25 if you're a girl and you're healthy.  from there it's person choice and very subjective.

I think it's inaccurate, since fingers aren't in proportion to frame size. I have ridiculously small fingers (which I just have to add sucks if you play guitar DX) although I get a medium, I saw on this websight though about making a 90 degree angle with your elbow and measuring the bones that stick out, which sounds a bit more accurate, and also measuring your wrists with a ruler, not your fingers ;P

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz