Wrist size an indicator of pelvis size?

[operamommy]

My dr. told me this last week, and I found it very interesting. I'd never heard it before, but I suppose it makes sense. I know a lot of ladies on here get mad over hearing someone "can't" have a vaginal delivery because of their height...but looking at wrist size makes sense to me. I'm not short (I'm 5' 4") but I have a TINY frame - my wedding ring is a size 3 1/2.

Anyone else ever heard this theory?

*note* We did not have this conversation because my dr. was trying to scare me into anything

I'm adding this on to prevent confusion:She wasn't saying anything about birthing babes or that a small wrist equaled not being able to birth vaginally. It was just a comment that wrist size indicated pelvis size. I gave birth to an 8 lb. 4 oz. babe with her 2 years ago, so that wasn't what she was saying at all.

[treehugginhippie]

No info but subbing to see what others say...

[Jane]

I think it's total bunk - as is the shoe size theory.
And that's my professional opinion.

[Miranda2r14]

Absolutely not. In my case my I'm 5'2" tall and my wrist is only 5.5" all around. As a first time mom, I birthed my average 7lb 8oz (at 38weeks) baby very easily. My active labor was only 6 hours and I pushed for 30 minutes. I feel I could've easily naturally birthed a much larger baby.

[applejuice]

No.

[Barbee]

i've read that nature doesn't give mothers babies they can't push out naturally. it doesn't make evolutionary sense. there are exceptions and abnormalities of course, but this theory seems way too general. if that were true, then small people wouldn't have passed the evolutionary test and would have instead been selected out of the gene pool by this time. we've been on the planet a long time.

[operamommy]

Originally Posted by Miranda2r14

Absolutely not. In my case my I'm 5'2" tall and my wrist is only 5.5" all around. As a first time mom, I birthed my average 7lb 8oz (at 38weeks) baby very easily. My active labor was only 6 hours and I pushed for 30 minutes. I feel I could've easily naturally birthed a much larger baby.

Woah now! She wasn't saying anything about birthing babes or that a small wrist equaled not being able to birth vaginally. It was just a comment that wrist size indicated pelvis size. I gave birth to an 8 lb. 4 oz. babe with her 2 years ago, so that wasn't what she was saying at all.

[anthasam]

I never heard of wrist size or shoe size!

Out of sheer curiosity, I just measured my wrist -- it is only 5.25 inches around (and I'm a little "puffy" at 37 weeks ) I'm barely 5 feet tall and DD1 was birthed naturally -- 8lbs 2ozs.

I'm not sure what the shoe size theory is, but I've got some pretty big feet


ETA: I do know of other "relational" parts, for lack of a better term! For example, your forearm is the same size as your foot and your nose and ears are the same size as well. I'm off to Google now!

[earthmama369]

Well, I do have a very slender wrist and "light" bones, and prior to having children, my hips were practically non-existent. But pelvises stretch in pregnancy and birth. (Well, the ligaments do.)

So I, with my "narrow hips," vaginally birthed a 10 lb. 4 oz. baby.

Granted, he was a shoulder dystocia presentation, and I blew my hip during his birth, but I did it, and after a few months and a few adjustments with a DO, my hip was fine. Without the adjustments, I still would have been fine, it just would have required a little more time.

Guess it's a good thing we don't give birth from our wrists....

[QueenOfThePride]

Ridiculous. I'm 5'8" and have very narrow bones. Size 7.5 shoes, size 4.5 rings, 5.5" wrists. I birthed a 9lb1oz baby.

[philomom]

Bunk! I have tiny wrists and birthed babies just fine.

[Jane]

To elaborate - this doctor is positing a link between bone structure - as measured at the wrist - and pelvis size. I can't imagine how those two parameters are linked. I could see suggesting that a small wrist would equal less robust bones in the pelvis - but that would make the pelvis bigger on the inside if the bones were smaller.

It's already hard to talk pelvis size because of the way people think about it = hip size, butt size, broadness at the front. Some of those parameters are about fat distribution or muscle distribution. But even at the root - the outer dimentions of the pelvis are not really germane to the discussion - it's the inner dimentions of the pelvis that are being assayed by childbirth. There are some "boy hipped" women that have huge interior pelvic dimentions, and some broad bones pelvises with tight quarters on the inside.

[Datura]

I have big wrists, HUGE feet and an equally large pelvis. So for me, individually, there is a correlation. I had a 10 lb, 2 oz baby, by the way.

[wendy1221]

That's ridiculous. I'm 5'3, and while I DO have big feet, I have small wrists. My kids have not only been BIG, they've all come out in strange positions. My midwife tells me I've got a pelvis you could drive a truck through.

[alegna]

Nope. I have hips and a pelvis you could drive a hummer through and TINY wrists...

-Angela

[JavaFinch]

I also don't believe in it. I have tiny wrists but my ankles are not tiny and I'm 5'8 with largeish feet. My wrists alone would say I'm small framed, but I have never considered myself small framed. My pelvis is plenty large - my son while only 7 pounds 2 oz, had a 10+ lb baby head size.

[guest9921]

Tiny wrists and hands here. Petite (when not pregnant or immediately postpartum ) in general. 10lb first baby, 10lb13oz second baby.

[NJ*Doula]

Originally Posted by alegna

Nope. I have hips and a pelvis you could drive a hummer through and TINY wrists...

-Angela

Ditto - tiny, tiny wrists and huge honkin' pelvis/hips here.

[ananas]

I don't believe it. I have TINY wrists and big baby-bearing hips. I don't think wrists and your pelvis have any relation.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by GathererGirl

Ditto - tiny, tiny wrists and huge honkin' pelvis/hips here.

Me, too. Itty bitty wrists and big 'ole hips a la my Grannie.

I have a small frame and am 5'5" and ~120 lbs.