or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Wrist size an indicator of pelvis size?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wrist size an indicator of pelvis size? - Page 2

post #21 of 60
No. It doesn't make sense. Anatomy just doesn't work like that. I would love to know who taught her that...
post #22 of 60
IMO, it's just another example of personal opinions being provided as scientific theory
post #23 of 60
It is probably a bunch of bull, but for me I like the idea. I am only 5ft2 and was coerced into a c-section for fetal macrosomia without a TOL. DD was 9lbs8.5oz. I have had lots of people tell me there was no way I could have given birth to her because of my size (and it hurts every time they say it).
Well, I may be short, but I have big bones. My wrist is over 6 inches around. My hips are not particularily wide, but the midwife I hope to use next time said it isn't the outside of your hips, it is the inside of the pelvis that counts. My aunt vaginally birthed my nine pound cousin, and she is as short as I am. Next time, I hope to push out an equally big baby.
post #24 of 60
I think that generally, bone structure can be sort of guessed like that... you assume someone with large wrists, feet, etc is going to generally be large boned. But that's not always the case; people are not always proportional. And I think it would also be everyday, non-pregnant, non-birthing pelvis size. It has nothing to do with how much stretch your ligaments will have, how open you have the capacity to become, etc. I'm not sure that there's another body marker that would correspond to that because it's such a specialized thing; there's nothing else in our bodies that works that way.
post #25 of 60
i seriously doubt it.
post #26 of 60
My mom is a MW and she has told me multiple times that even *body* size has nothing to do with how open your pelvis is. Apparently the most "open" person she's ever encountered (via vaginal exam, during labor) was one of her clients who is 4'10"!
post #27 of 60
I have to wear children's watches, and my 9lb 15oz son was born vaginally (with a nuchal hand, even), so...I'm dubious. And I doubt anyone would say I have small hips...

Edited to add: And I'm 5ft tall exactly, if that matters.
post #28 of 60
Why would your bone thickness have anything to do with your pelvic width?

I'm built pretty much identically to my mom and have a 6.25" wrist and I was born via c-section because of bad positioning. One of the MDCers I've met is about my height with a much smaller frame and she's had 4 without trouble.
post #29 of 60
Well I think it's interesting anyway!
I'm shorter than you, tiny wrists, same size wedding ring as you.

My daughter was 8lbs 3oz, three days shy of her due date, my son was 6lbs. 15oz, born at 36 weeks.

Interestingly, my daughter, after 31 hours of labor, was born via C because she was pretty much STUCK, for lack of a better word. She was posterior, forhead presenting. I was 10cm for a long time, and neither of my midwives, nor my doctor could turn or reposition her. She was right there. They could see her head, could feel her eyebrows, just couldn't budge her, and couldn't use the vacuum. She wasn't in distress yet... but oh lord, I was after that much time.

No one ever mentioned CPD, and it wasn't on my surgical report, but I wonder.

My doctor nearly needed to use the vacuum to remove her during the C-section, she was that firmly in there.

My son was born early for reasons unrelated to size or previous C. Though I'm sure had he had the opportunity to incubate for as long as his sister, he'd have been bigger at birth! And I was sure I'd be able to VBAC him.


Now, both my mother (my size), and my MIL (smaller than me), birthed naturally & vaginally 7 children between them with no problems. So who knows! My thought going into my first birth was that I'd have an easy time of it - heredity & all that.
Anyhow, it's an interesting theory. Did you find anything on google?
post #30 of 60
I have small wrists and "birthing hips"
post #31 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Nope. I have hips and a pelvis you could drive a hummer through and TINY wrists...

-Angela


Me too!!! Well maybe not a hummer, but atleast a Minivan or regular sized SUV - my 9lb 9oz rolly polly drove thru just fine! A bit of shoulder dystocia - but that was cuz his shoulders were significantly larger than his head. My little football player.

BTW - I can't wear adult sized watches cuz my wrists are too small - but I have a horrible time finding jeans to accomodate my "birthing hips"
post #32 of 60
....not to mention that many of us have 'mixed' skeletal types! I have small-to-med sized upper body bones, with medium-to-large lower body bones. So, kind of average sized wrists (I'm 5'1"), but fairly large ankle bones.

Sounds like one of those 'rules of thumb' that really doesn't hold much water for most people.
post #33 of 60
I don't think so. I wear a 4.5 ring and my longest pushing time was 20 minutes with my biggest baby (7 lbs. 13 oz.).
post #34 of 60
Ok I am going to say that I think that yes it could be possible, the OP didn't say that it had anything to do with whether or not you could birth the baby or not, just that there was a size comparison.

Now I also want to comment on the evolution not allowing women to grow babies larger than they can birth. This was true in the day when people ate the foods that man is supposed to eat. In that time there was not an obesity problem either. What we eat while pregnant does affect the way our children grow inside.

Now that is not to say that large babies can not be birthed vaginally, however I can say that my body for some reason does not produce contractions. I have never had a braxton hicks contraction and the only contractions I have ever felt are from Pitocin. I went 4+ weeks over with my first and they used pitocin to induce, after 3 inductions in the course of a week and no progress when they shut off the pitocin even with my water broke my contractions stopped. I ended up with a c-section. With my 2nd my water broke on its own 4 weeks early, I stayed home for 12 hours and at that point went to the hospital as I had just been told I was GBS + the day before at my appt so didn't want to cause problems because of that. When I arrived my was only dialated to a 1 and was having NO contractions.
So for some reason my body does not move along in labor and we don't know why. It doesn't make me happy, but I have accepted it. I do not think that it has anything to do with the fact that evolution anymore there are too many man made substances that are put into our bodies now that we are well past that!

Hugs
Jessica
post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by kltroy View Post
My mom is a MW and she has told me multiple times that even *body* size has nothing to do with how open your pelvis is. Apparently the most "open" person she's ever encountered (via vaginal exam, during labor) was one of her clients who is 4'10"!
How cool that your mom is a midwife!
post #36 of 60
My wrists are abnormally thin and tiny (I am 5'10"), and I have had several practitioners over the years comment on how roomy my pelvis is while doing pelvic exams.

On a similar note- you also cannot tell by a person's external build how wide their pelvic inlet or outlet is. Tiny women can have larger pelvises than big and tall women.
post #37 of 60
Let's see, I have a tape measure here...

My wrists are 6.5 in, I'm 5'10, and my hips are a big fat 39 inches around the bony part (still need to get rid of some baby weight). I can't measure the inside of my pelvis with my tape measure , but it was big enough for an 8 pound breech baby with a huge head. I'm a tall person with a big pelvis, but I don't know if my wrists count as "big" or not. They don't look big compared with my hands, anyway... What's average wrist size, in inches? ...Ahah! Internet says 6.5 inches is average for women, 7 inches for men. And this site says that the average hip measurement of women in 1950 was 34 inches, and in 1990 it was 37 inches. So, looks like I have average wrists and a big pelvis. (Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness here.)

I think that like most generalizations, this theory isn't very useful. It would be interesting to measure lots of people just to see, though - as long as some OB didn't start telling women they would have to get a c/s because of their wrist size!
post #38 of 60
hogwash.
post #39 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by organicmommy View Post
Now I also want to comment on the evolution not allowing women to grow babies larger than they can birth. This was true in the day when people ate the foods that man is supposed to eat. In that time there was not an obesity problem either. What we eat while pregnant does affect the way our children grow inside.
This is a good point. Dr. Weston Price (who travelled the world in the 30's to study traditional diets vs. the modern diet and their effect on dental health) found a strong correlation between a modern diet of white flour and sugar and narrowed hips in women (he also saw narrowed dental arches and crowded teeth in people on a modern diet as well). Dr. Price tells a story in his book about a fellow doctor that lived near the Eskimos but had not once been able to make it in time to attend a birth of an Eskimo baby where the mother ate the traditional diet (primarily fish and seal blubber - both very rich in nutrients). They had fast, painless labors and would often do so in the middle of the night and not even wake their husbands who were sleeping just inches from them!! The Eskimo women that were on a modern diet had longer more painful births and were more likely to have difficulty so the doctor had no problem making it in time to attend their births. This is ancedotal of course since its never been scientifically researched but it has left a powerful impression on me - especially since I'm preggers with a baby girl this time. I really want to eat a nutrient dense/traditional diet for her so she'll have nice birthin' hips and hopefully less painful labors in the future. Of course, seal blubber will NOT be on the menu.
post #40 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by saving_grace View Post
This is a good point. Dr. Weston Price (who travelled the world in the 30's to study traditional diets vs. the modern diet and their effect on dental health) found a strong correlation between a modern diet of white flour and sugar and narrowed hips in women (he also saw narrowed dental arches and crowded teeth in people on a modern diet as well). Dr. Price tells a story in his book about a fellow doctor that lived near the Eskimos but had not once been able to make it in time to attend a birth of an Eskimo baby where the mother ate the traditional diet (primarily fish and seal blubber - both very rich in nutrients). They had fast, painless labors and would often do so in the middle of the night and not even wake their husbands who were sleeping just inches from them!! The Eskimo women that were on a modern diet had longer more painful births and were more likely to have difficulty so the doctor had no problem making it in time to attend their births. This is ancedotal of course since its never been scientifically researched but it has left a powerful impression on me - especially since I'm preggers with a baby girl this time. I really want to eat a nutrient dense/traditional diet for her so she'll have nice birthin' hips and hopefully less painful labors in the future. Of course, seal blubber will NOT be on the menu.
Wow, that's pretty fascinating stuff!

If I have some time I'll ask my doc more about her wrist/pelvis theory. Again, she was not positing that women with small wrists could *not* birth vaginally. It was just a quick comment she made last time I saw her that I found interesting.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Wrist size an indicator of pelvis size?