How do you stack up?

Choose female for all options. Compare by age and overall if available.
http://www.stackmeup.com/your-body/your-body-home.php

11.5" - flexed bicep size circumference in inches at the largest part
Overall - "Your biceps are larger than 58.49% of women in the nation and 0.9'' larger than the average female bicep."
Age - "Your biceps are ranked 37.25% for women your age and is 1.68'' smaller than the average female bicep."
^^ Huh? Really? I call bs.

9.5" - Relaxed forearm size circumference in inches at the largest part.
"Your forearms are smaller than 52.56% of the women in the nation and 0.25'' smaller than the average female forearm."

6" - Wrist size circumference at the smallest part
"Your wrists are smaller than 48.31% of women in the nation and 0.1'' larger than the average female wrist."

13.2" - Neck size circumference
"Your neck is smaller than 49.24% of women in the nation and 0.1'' larger than the average female neck size."
^^ Gettin' there

13.5" - Flexed calf size circumference at the largest part
"Your calves are smaller than 51.46% of the women in the nation and 0.2 inches smaller than the average female."

20" - Thigh size circumference at the largest part
"Your thighs are smaller than 60.31% of women in the nation and 2.3'' smaller than the average female thigh."
^^ Need to fatten up =\

Hand size
7" - Length from base of palm to middle finger tip - "Your hands are larger than 39% of all women in the nation and 0.100 inches smaller than the average female hand length."
3.4" - Width left side to right side beginning from between thumb and index finger side to the right side of palm "Your hands are larger than 96% of all women in the nation and 0.270 inches larger than the average female hand width."
^^ Ptooey

9.2" - Foot size from heel end to big toe
"Your feet are larger than 68.22% of all women in the nation and 0.2'' larger than the average female foot size."
=(

63.5" - Height
"You're shorter than 59.72% of all other women in your age range and 0.7'' smaller than the average female your age."

Outside of my incredibly tiny hands, everything else is right around the female average or median.

11" - flexed bicep size circumference in inches at the largest part
Overall - "Your biceps are larger than 53.77% of women in the nation and 0.4'' larger than the average female bicep."
Age - "Your biceps are ranked 33.97% for women your age and is 2.1'' smaller than the average female bicep."

10" - Relaxed forearm size circumference in inches at the largest part
"Your forearms are larger than 52.56% of the women in the nation and 0.25'' larger than the average female forearm."
^^Playing drums and hockey have increased my forearm size quite a bit.  Without them, my forearms are tiny.

5.5" - Wrist size circumference at the smallest part
"Your wrists are smaller than 56.78% of women in the nation and 0.4'' smaller than the average female wrist."

13.8" - Neck size circumference
"Your neck is smaller than 44.66% of women in the nation and 0.7'' larger than the average female neck size."
^^Considering I started at 17" before weight loss and HRT, I'm really happy about this.

14" - Flexed calf size circumference at the largest part
"Your calves are larger than 52.19% of the women in the nation and 0.3 inches larger than the average female."
^^Hockey has boosted my calf size.  When I don't play, they become really small.

22" - Thigh size circumference at the largest part
"Your thighs are smaller than 51.35% of women in the nation and 0.3'' smaller than the average female thigh."

Hand Size
6" - Length - "Your hands are smaller than 99.04% of all women in the nation and 1.100 inches smaller than the average female hand length."
2.75" - Width - "Your hands are smaller than 99.02% of all women in the nation and 0.380 inches smaller than the average female hand width."
^^I have ridiculously small hands

9" - Foot size from heel end to big toe
"Your feet are larger than 45.33% of all women in the nation and equal to the average female foot size."

64" - Height
"You're shorter than 52.78% of all other women in your age range and 0.2'' smaller than the average female your age."

Holy crap you're like a mirror image of me.

I'm a year into HRT and I've been on a somewhat restricted protein diet (with cheats in between) so my muscle loss has been steady. Still need another year to hopefully have feminine proportions.



^^ Arms currently. Don't be fooled they look more than flattering at this vantage point but I think I'm making good progress.

There's ways to achieve fulfilling meals for <24 grams of protein a day if you eat right.

Such as sticking with canned light vegetable soups (Campbell's Cream of Mushroom for instance is 2.5 grams for the entire can), shirataki noodles (nearly 0 protein 0 carbs and 0 cals) and lots of low protein vegs.

I prefer to keep my fat and carbohydrate intake high with very low protein consumption. These muscles need to DIE but the feminine body fat needs to stay.

Well this just makes me feel even more of a freak. My foot length is 10 inches, this website confirms they are ridiculously huge for a woman. Honestly they look so bad I sometimes feel like giving up.

Quote from: Evelyn K on April 25, 2015, 01:29:41 AM
Holy crap you're like a mirror image of me.

OMG I didn't see that.  That's great!  You're much prettier than I am though.    We're close enough that I put my arm up to the arm pic you posted and mine looks pretty much exactly the same.

Instead of doing heavy protein restrictions, I just run 25-30 miles a week and try to limit my protein to around 50g/day.  For the most part my tastes have changed to where I can mostly eat what I want and stay within my calorie and protein limits. 

IT's all make up!

Anyway I've thought long and hard about doing long endurance runs of cardio to "burn off these muscles" but I'm weary of having the stress hormone cortisol pouring into my system from the intensity required. IMO it's just as damaging as testosterone to my hairline and other things. Pre-transition I was running up to 5 miles on the gym treadmill to burn off the fat during muscle shape 'cutting' phases. But I noticed an impact on my hairline a few weeks later with shedding. That cortisol is serious business.

So I've decided to take the protein restriction route and allow my body to literally consume itself albeit gently.

I'll still do cardio for it's other benefits, but only a mile a workout once or twice a week.

Oh wonderful, another 'tool' to make those insecure about their bodies feel even worse.

Quote from: Squircle on April 25, 2015, 01:41:01 AM
Well this just makes me feel even more of a freak. My foot length is 10 inches, this website confirms they are ridiculously huge for a woman. Honestly they look so bad I sometimes feel like giving up.

Don't give up, the actual "average" woman is a lot bigger in most ways than that site suggests.

Quote from: Squircle on April 25, 2015, 01:41:01 AM
Well this just makes me feel even more of a freak. My foot length is 10 inches, this website confirms they are ridiculously huge for a woman. Honestly they look so bad I sometimes feel like giving up.

Mark Denkler, chairman of the National Shoe Retailers Association, has been quoted as saying:

For women, we say 8 ½ is the new 7...the assortments, called casepacks, used to come in women's sizes 5 to 10. Now it's 6 to 11."

A half inch bigger for womens shoe size isn't much at all! You're in the range Squircle.

I'm honestly really surprised, I was expecting that I'd be in the top 10% of every single measurement possible since I'm like 8" taller than the average woman, plus large-framed. Surprisingly, though, most of my measurements are somewhere around being only larger than 65% of women. I'm pretty shocked about that, especially since I'm in the 96th percentile of height at 6'0.5", plus the 81st percentile of weight for my age.

(Only measurements that were really high were hand length (85%) and foot length (89%)

I sincerely hope this thread does not degenerate into a 'I'm more female than thou' topic.

That would concern me.

That's the one thing that irks me about proportions. My hands according to the site are "7" - Length from base of palm to middle finger tip - "Your hands are larger than 39% of all women in the nation and 0.100 inches smaller than the average female hand length."

Yet I'm short. So being ".100 inches smaller average" might actually still be slightly large for my height.

I honestly feel my hands are a bit large from my last set of pics.

 

Quote from: bibilinda on April 25, 2015, 04:51:26 AM
Note: Sorry I just read Cindy's post above and it seems I am doing exactly what she hoped it wouldn't happen lol. But I want to voice my opinion anyways. And I am comparing TO MYSELF, not to others, so I am more female now than myself when before and just starting HRT, even if I was way slimmer, but I definitely looked like a guy and now I don't.

<snipped for brevity>

I think it's ok to have these sort of physical stats available, with the consideration of course that it's used to compare yourself to cis women. As a tool I *want* to know how I compare to cis women because that is what I'm trying most to emulate. That said, on the negative side it reinforces beauty proportion stereotypes. On the positive side, at least it tells us where improvements can be made, to where and how far or close our own personal averages really are.

If I know my arms measurements are within range, then I know further fat loss (for instance) might make them appear better, but at what cost? A thinning out of my face and now appearing gaunt? Knowing how I compare, I shouldn't have to. The comparison tool served a good purpose.

Here's why the comparisons in the web site mentioned  by the OP are not realistic:

They ask you for a measurement and then they compare that measurement to that of the "average" male or female in the US, according to whatever census or statistics they got them from.

PROBLEM IS:

That the average man and woman used for the calculations, has AN AVERAGE height, that may or may not match with yours, so if you are much taller (like me) than that average person, or maybe much shorter, then those averages will simply make no sense at all. Unless of course they told you, in your result, something like this: the average woman used for this calculation is X feet tall. Or better yet, that for every single comparison they asked you your height first, so they could compare you with someone your height.

Here's something that does make sense to me:

About six years ago, when I was about to start HRT, I found a very comprehensive table of body measurements for men and women, from a web site named Second Type Woman. So I copied that in a file and I started checking my measurements to compare to that table.

But, in order to make such measurements MAKE SENSE, I needed to find out what was the average height for the average woman used in the table, and then calculate a factor, to apply to the difference between my height and the height of the average woman in the table, and then re-calculate the figures to accommodate them to a woman MY HEIGHT.

So the female height for the table (the average female height that is) was 64.25 inches. That is, 163.2 meters or 5.354 feet.

Since I am exactly six feet tall, in order to get the conversion factor, I divided 6/5.354 = 1.120

Which means that in order to convert those "average measurements" of a woman into a woman MY HEIGHT, I would have to multiply by 1.12065. This way the table would MAKE SENSE to someone my height.

Here's an example:

The female neck circumference measurement says 13.10 inches, but this is for a 5.354-foot woman, much shorter than me. So I multiply by the factor, 1.12065 and I get 14.68 inches. That would be the women's neck measurement for a woman MY HEIGHT. I measured my neck, it measures 14 2/8", that is, 14.25 inches, so I actually have a THINNER NECK than an average woman my height in the US!

The hand length measurement, for that 5.354-foot woman, is 7.10 inches. So my 7 5/8 (7.625) inch size may look like too much, but making the conversion, a woman my height would measure 7.95 inches, so again I measured LESS than a woman MY HEIGHT!

The foot length measurement: I measure 10.55 inches (26.8 centimeters). My women's shoe size US is 10.5 BTW, so I wear size 11 for flats and a bit bigger for high heels if they are taller than three inches. According to the table, the 5.354-foot woman measured 9.58, so I convert it to my height and the result is 10.735, AGAIN, I measured LESS than a woman MY HEIGHT!

Bottom line, I really hope that other women who may feel MISTAKENLY SELF-CONSCIOUS about their measurements because of that table, come to realize that the comparisons  that that website makes are useless, unless you are casually exactly the same height as the person they used as a calculation subject for such comparisons.

Cheers

Bibi B.

^^ Very good points I like. The same formula can be applied to whatever numbers this sites suggest.

64.2 seems to be the 50% average height for women in the 35 y.o range. And you can offset and deduce your measurements from there. For me I would simply factor neg .989

It could be interesting to flesh it out later for kicks.

BTW is there anything hotter than a gal with good math sense?

Quote from: kelly_aus on April 25, 2015, 02:43:00 AM
Don't give up, the actual "average" woman is a lot bigger in most ways than that site suggests.

This may as well be a thread about breast size....so many variations.

Feel for those who are under five foot in height these charts just don't figure...

When I did graphic communications at school they taught us when drawing a person the scale of things like the distance between the wris and that elbow is the same as you foot length and that your eyes are halfway between your top of head and bottom of chin...

It's all a guide. Everyone makes pizza their own way.

Remember that each hour you spend measuring your body parts is one less hour spent enjoying your life. 

Sounds like a fortune cookie, doesn't it?

Hugs, Devlyn

Bleh. I would rather not. I know who I am and I'm smaller than a lot of women even. I don't care. I'm still me!

Quote from: Cindy on April 25, 2015, 04:32:24 AM
I sincerely hope this thread does not degenerate into a 'I'm more female than thou' topic.

That would concern me.

Would it be out of line for me to claim to be more "monstery" than other monsters?   


Just wondering as I've noticed a couple more monsters around lately....

Quote from: marsh monster on April 25, 2015, 11:32:26 AM
Would it be out of line for me to claim to be more "monstery" than other monsters?   


Just wondering as I've noticed a couple more monsters around lately....

Not to worry, your "Fingers From Ground to Fingers From Toenails" ratio is great! I'd go so far as to say you're the best looking monster we have here. Doing anything tonight? 

Hugs, Devlyn