Someone mentioned wanting to see data on non-overweight afab women, so I compiled data from Ansur IIThe height vs ribcage size chart for healthy-weight women is brutal
>>42128442Here is hips to height as well
>>42128474>3 years hrt>90cm hips at 170cmkms
>>42128442who even measures chest breadthpost underbust
>>42128563Unfortunately wasn't in the ANSUR II database. It's in ANSUR I but I can't plot individual points with its data
>>42128442thanks anonthis was me who requested this>>42128474specifically hips to heightmerry christmas
>>42128611Merry Christmas :)
>>42128513>>42128611I might have mislabeled the hips/height chart. Technically it's labeled as "buttock circumference" on the ANSUR II. I'll see if I can find one specifically for hips though
>>42128563>who even measures chest breadthtrue. we dont have giant calipers here
>>42128644>buttock circumferenceIf you're measuring hip circumference aren't they basically the same?
>>42128762Yeah, that's what I'd think, but I guess it depends if you measuring around the top of the hip bone or just the widest circumference
>>42128442its over
>>42128808What are your measurements?
>>42128644Try bicristal breadth
Ratios (i.e. proportions) are more important than raw measurements in my opinion.
>>42128667rude
>height 178cm>chest breadth 27cmniiiiice
>>4212882710.5in chest breadth5'534in hips
>>42128853what
>>42128442what are my measurements like?height 188cmbuttock circumference 104cmunderbust circumference 81cmwaist circumference 72cmfoot length EU 44 27.9cmbideltoid 44cmbiacromial (might be inaccurate) 41cmik the height is extremely bad but the ratios?
>>42128847Here's bicristal x height
>>42128442damn there's somebody out there who's 4' 7" with a 9" chest depth; isn't that just a child?
>>42128929Thanks. I figured this would be an interesting one, because when removing BMI >25 you'd expect measurements to decrease, yet bicristal is one where a bigger number is more feminine.I think it would be good to exclude BMI <18.5 too, otherwise you've removed overweight but not underweight, and the latter will likely be pulling the trend line down a little. Nobody should be comparing themselves to underweight cis women.
>>42128934That individual was a 23yr old Cherokee woman who weighed 107lbs
Regression equations, all measurements in cm, for 20 ≤ BMI ≤ 25:>chest breadth = 10.531 ± 1.077 + height × (0.096 ± 0.007)>biacromial breadth = 10.456 ± 1.118 + height × (0.158 ± 0.007)>bicristal breadth = 5.369 ± 1.310 + height × (0.129 ± 0.008)e.g. for height 175cm:>chest breadth = 27.29 ± 2.23>biacromial breadth = 38.07 ± 2.31>bicristal breadth = 28.03 ± 2.71
>>42128929tried pressing until the bone and measured 36cm at 178cm, hoping my hips turn out to be good after losing weight
>>42128934I'm 5'10" and my chest depth is barely 9.5", breasts included. 8.5" if I compress them.>>42129155Are you definitely pressing at the iliac crests? 36cm would be a freakishly huge bicristal measurement.
>>42128442Should probably note that chest breadth in ANSUR II is with soft tissue compressed
>>42129167>Are you definitely pressing at the iliac crests? 36cm would be a freakishly huge bicristal measurement.yes. Im fat, 45cm if I dont press at all on the same spot
>>42129131This time for males, for comparison:>chest breadth = 11.118 ± 0.904 + height × (0.093 ± 0.005)>biacromial breadth = 15.784 ± 1.008 + height × (0.141 ± 0.006)>bicristal breadth = 6.788 ± 0.909 + height × (0.112 ± 0.005)e.g. for height 175cm:>chest breadth = 27.42 ± 1.79>biacromial breadth = 40.42 ± 2.00>bicristal breadth = 26.32 ± 1.80Male chest breadth is less than 2mm wider on average than female chest breadth, and has less variation.
>>42129268Are you definitely sure you're pressing at the iliac crests and not the trochanters? The iliac crests are not the widest part of the hips. They're further up, typically just below the navel.
>>42129286yes Im sure. dont be surprised, as I said Im fat, its not reliable. my hip breadth at the widest part is 48cm without applying any pressure, but its worse because I can feel that there is a lot of soft tissue before the trochanters so I dont even bother differently from the iliac crests that are basically bone
>>42128442>chest breadthreally easy to overmeasure without calipers>>42128474really curious about the male values for this>>42128929okay this one is like super easy to overmeasure without callipers and knowing what youre doing
>>42129377I believe you anon! I'll stop pestering you now. Wow, you weren't kidding when you said you were fat.
>>42129496>Wow, you weren't kidding when you said you were fat.its over
>>42129413male, female comparison for hip circumference, bmi less than 25.
>>42129524>chest breadth at female average>biacromial breadth at female average>bicristal breadth greater than female average>buttock circumference at male averageI need to gain some weight!
>>42128442wow this has seriously impacted my retrospective interpretation of the validity of conclusions based on ANSUR. especially about myself, as my BMI is 19i didn’t realise americans were so fat
>>42129619What does that chart show?
>>42129629sorry i cut off the legend. x axis is weight, y axis is heightblue is obese, red is overweight. green dots are underweight
>>42129741thank you nona
>>42128762>>42128791You can read the full ansur reports to see how they do all the measurements; bjttock circumference is taken at the trochanter, the hip-thigh joint>>42129619ye, BMI breaks down for very muscular people such as soldiers
Idkkkkk some of yall can pass a lot better if you just experiment a bit and get out of your comfort zones, don’t lose hope because of some numbers on a chart
