# Wrist size an indicator of pelvis size?



## operamommy (Nov 9, 2004)

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 (Nov 29, 2004)

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


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

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


----------



## Miranda2r14 (Jan 20, 2008)

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 (Oct 8, 2002)

No.


----------



## Barbee (Nov 27, 2004)

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 (Nov 9, 2004)

Quote:


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 (Aug 20, 2005)

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 (Jul 29, 2005)

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 (May 26, 2005)

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 (Sep 12, 2004)

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


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

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 (Mar 18, 2005)

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 (Feb 9, 2004)

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 (Jan 14, 2003)

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









-Angela


----------



## JavaFinch (May 26, 2002)

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 (Nov 3, 2005)

Tiny wrists and hands here. Petite (when not pregnant or immediately postpartum







) in general. 10lb first baby, 10lb13oz second baby.


----------



## NJ*Doula (Apr 14, 2006)

Quote:


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 (Jun 6, 2006)

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 (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


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.


----------



## etoilech (Mar 25, 2004)

No. It doesn't make sense. Anatomy just doesn't work like that. I would love to know who taught her that...


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

IMO, it's just another example of personal opinions being provided as scientific theory


----------



## turtlewomyn (Jun 5, 2005)

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.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

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.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

i seriously doubt it.


----------



## kltroy (Sep 30, 2006)

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"!


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

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.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

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.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

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?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I have small wrists and "birthing hips"


----------



## naturegirl7 (Jan 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
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"


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

....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.


----------



## Veritaserum (Apr 24, 2004)

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.).


----------



## organicmommy (May 16, 2005)

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


----------



## 3cuties (Mar 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kltroy* 
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!


----------



## accountclosed6 (Jun 29, 2005)

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.


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

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!


----------



## jul511riv (Mar 16, 2006)

hogwash.


----------



## guestmama9916 (Jun 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *organicmommy* 
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.


----------



## operamommy (Nov 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saving_grace* 
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.


----------



## BunnySlippers (Oct 30, 2007)

Not true.
I have a thin frame and had a great time birthing naturally a big baby- who was also my first. I could have had a larger baby.
I do have long feet. long and narrow.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

I Don't believe it. I have tiny wrists, fingers, and feet. My midwife said my pelvis is more than adequate. I pushed both kids out in less than 15 minutes.


----------



## `guest` (Nov 20, 2001)

I have thin wrists, and a huge pelvis! Pushed out a 10 lb 2 oz, first baby too! Outta this pelvis....


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

I have very slim, delicate wrists. I can fit into very small bracelets and watches that much smaller, shorter women can't. I'm tall with ample hips. I have always had real hips. No matter how skinny I get - and I've been "model" skinny - I always have a curvy figure because my hips/pelvis are a good size. It's also why I can't get below a size 6 (though I did have one size 4 skirt I was able to wear for awhile, but honestly it was sized a little big), and why jeans never fit - if the hips fit, the waist is gigantic on me.

Dh insists it's one of the things that attracted him to me! Whew! I spent too many years worrying about the fact that I couldn't get my bones any slimmer in that area, lol.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *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.

I would have to say NO. my wrists are teeny tiny and my oldest was 9lbs 10oz. I have huge hips.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
I have very slim, delicate wrists. I can fit into very small bracelets and watches that much smaller, shorter women can't. I'm tall with ample hips. I have always had real hips. No matter how skinny I get - and I've been "model" skinny - I always have a curvy figure because my hips/pelvis are a good size. It's also why I can't get below a size 6 (though I did have one size 4 skirt I was able to wear for awhile, but honestly it was sized a little big), and why jeans never fit - if the hips fit, the waist is gigantic on me.

Dh insists it's one of the things that attracted him to me! Whew! I spent too many years worrying about the fact that I couldn't get my bones any slimmer in that area, lol.

OMG me too! I can't get into a 6 either...I have to wear a 7 (juniors) or 8 (womens)

and always a belt to hold that waist in...


----------



## momtob&t (Mar 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Nope. I have hips and a pelvis you could drive a hummer through and TINY wrists...









-Angela









:


----------



## Lily Eve (Feb 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Apricot* 
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.

Exactly. I have teeny tiny wrists and pushed an 8 pound 6 ounce baby out in about 5 minutes (the midwives even told me to "blow candles" because he was coming out so fast).

My mom has the hips of a boy, that is to say, virtually none at all. She had the same scenario with my brother and I too. We couldn't get out fast enough it seems.


----------



## merrijayne (Aug 31, 2005)

when i first opened this thread i miss read pelsis foe penis. HEHE

That is what this id beginning to sound like to me. There is no way to tell this eather IMO


----------



## SublimeBirthGirl (Sep 9, 2005)

I have a tiny wrist, very small-boned. But i've got birthin' hips and my 8pound, 1 ounce baby popped right out (#1, at 7-12, took a bit longer but still came out in less than an hour of pushing and no trouble).


----------



## tinyshoes (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ralphie76* 
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.

EXCELLENT point.

I'm 5'7", thin, tiny wrists, narrow hips--but a generous pelvic outlet.

As for the theory, "well, now we eat McDonald's so now babies are too big and don't fit anymore".....baloney.

When it comes to birth, really, the deciding factor is baby's head, and I'd love to hear some impressive newborn head circumference numbers from this "modern diet = a need for c-sections" crowd--but I know I'm not going to hear any. And remember, we're talking about a baby head that was built to be squished and turned cone-head to get out. A greasy American diet might make a person pudgy or have gross poop, but it's not going to change the fat distribution or bone structure of a baby's noggin.

I'd rather blame intervention-happy clock-watching care providers who put their patients on their backs for pushing as to why now it's "harder" to get a baby out in our modern world.


----------



## mama_at_home (Apr 27, 2004)

I have medium-sized wrists and my midwife says I am built like a barn (my pelvis).


----------



## rach03 (Dec 30, 2006)

I just saw this on the main page and had to respond. I have THE smallest wrists EVER. Seriously...they are like 4.5 inches around. Everyone pokes fun at how small my wrists are.

I delivered an 8 pound 1 ounce 21 inch long baby vaginally. I know that's not super big, but if my pelvis size correlated with my wrist size I'd have been in trouble!


----------



## njbeachgirl (Oct 8, 2006)

hmmm I don't know. I have tiny little wrists and an "ample" pelvis according to my mw


----------



## amyjeans (Jul 27, 2004)

my wrists change size with my weight, but my pelvis doesn't. so i dont think that is true.


----------



## leafwood (Jun 15, 2004)

I don't have a tape measure, but my wrists are very very tiny. My wedding band is a 3 3/4. I'm 5'6" and would say my overall build is medium. However, I think my pelvis is quite ample! I remember very vividly at my first OB exam (age 15) the dr commenting that I had a great pelvis for childbearing and childbirth....she joked that I wouldn't appreciate it at the time, but that it was a very good thing.

Both of my babies were only 7lbs, but they came out quite easily.


----------



## amyjeans (Jul 27, 2004)

What I find interesting is that the female pelvis is not one singular bone, but a series held together with muscles and cartilage.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Labs/Anatomy_%26_Physiology/A%26P201/Skeletal/Labels/female_pelvis.jpg&imgrefurl=http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Labs/Anatomy_%26_Physiology/A%26P201/Skeletal/selected_bones/Bone_Features.html&h=616&w=818&sz=50&hl=en&start=2 4&um=1&tbnid=m-Ko58YGKo3ejM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=144&prev=/images%3Fq%3DANATOMY%2BOF%2BTHE%2BFEMALE%2BPELVIc% 2Bbones%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3De n%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DN
It was made to open and close, stretch and move.
Pretty cool.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

how do pygmy women give birth? wrist size, shoe size and even pelvic shape and size are not the best tools for determining ability to give birth- natural labor is the best tool- babies mold and twist and turn, connective tissue softens and allows the pelvis to shift around mobility in labor is a tool and can help as well
doctors who tell you about your wrist size=pelvic = successful birth run from that doc - this person is not preparing to support your choice to have a vaginal birth.


----------



## AlpineMama (Aug 16, 2007)

I have tiny, tiny wrists. Wedding band is a 4.5. I also have enormous "childbearing hips."







So, for me... not the case...


----------



## ZanZansMommy (Nov 8, 2003)

My ring size is also a 3 1/2







I had 2 babies 8.5 lbs & 9lbs at home no problem.


----------

