Body proportion - what am I not getting?

Anonymous

I need to ask this question, in hopes that someone can help.

I'm 5 ft. 2 in. tall and have a leg length of 29 inches. I'm not sure if this means my legs are long for my height or not. All I know is that whenever I shop for pants, it's difficult to find petite pants that are long enough. Most petite pants have an inseam of 28 or 29 inches; some are even shortaer @ 27 inches.

Seeing as how petite sizes are supposed to be for anyone 5 ft. 3 in. or under, I'm wondering if my legs are actually long for my height. If I buy dress pants to wear with heels, I need an inseam of 29 or 30 inches depending on what heel height I plan to wear with them.

Is there a mathematical formula I can use to figure out if I'm proportionately long in the legs?

Thanks in advance for your help.

11 years ago

Body Type

31 replies

Latest reply was from columbine(erin)

shiny

Veteran

I'm 5'0 with 28 inch inseam. This annoys me as well, but I don't think it's our proportions. I think it is the clothing manufacturers who do not understand PPL, or assume that we don't mind wearing floods if it avoids having to pay money for hemming.

I find Banana Republic keeps their petite pants length on the long side, long enough to wear with heels. For jeans, I wear regular -not-petite since I find they fit me better, for some odd reason, and resign myself to hemming.

As for whether you are proportionate, I think you are. Long ago I found some formula (might be golden ratio?) and determined my 28 inch inseam was perfectly proportional for 5'0 tall. All my life, I had been under the impression I had short stubby legs. Turns out I don't. I wouldn't call them "proportionately long" ... but they are also not proportionately short. I have decided that our heads are the problem: we are inundated with photos of tall, leggy models wearing high heels all the time, and that looks "right" to us, when it's not necessarily proportionate.

11 years ago

Anonymous

Shiny, you might be right about manufacturers not understanding PPL. I've never thought of my legs as being long for my height, but I'm a stickler for PPL, and shopping for pants is a frustrating experience because of it.

11 years ago

MsMary

Veteran

Yep! I have either stopped buying petite pants, or taken the petites to the tailor to have the hems taken down. I think the manufacturers don't understand that. Lot of us shorties want to wear heels and still have PPL.

11 years ago

Anonymous

I think either your crotch point or legbreak is supposed to be the exact middle of your body (vertically). If your legs are longer than from that point up to the top of your head, you are considered long legged. If the other way around, you have a long torso and short legs. If the same, you're balanced.

11 years ago

Anonymous

Thanks, clearlyclaire. By your way of calculating, my legs are short for my height. If I take my 29-inch leg length and multiply by 2, I get 58. Since I'm 62 inches tall, that means the top part of my body is 4 inches longer than my leg length. I'm short waisted, but think this makes sense because my rise (waist-to-crotch length) is long. I figured that out when I did that exercise where you measure your body by head lengths to figure out your body proportions. You'd think, though, that since I'm supposedly short-legged that I'd have to hem all my pants. I never have to hem petite pants. Whenever I wear regular-sized pants (such as my Express Editors), I buy the short length and it works fine without having to hem. Considering I'm only 5 ft. 2 in, tall, I feel lucky to be able to wear off-the-rack clothing and to occasionally be able to wear regular-sized tops or pants. It all depends on the brand, and I usually wear petite-sized clothing, but I have occasionally found petite clothing to be too narrow in the shoulders or too short in the sleeve or pants length. This is why I shop everywhere--not just in the petite section.

11 years ago

shiny

Veteran

No, that's not right; average leg length is less than 50% of total height; if your legs are 50% of your height, you are super leggy.

If you google you'll see the more accurate way to figure this out is to measure your sitting height, and use that as your calculation, rather than inseam.

11 years ago

shedev

Veteran

I'm 4'11, and I never shop in petites. They just never seem to have anything that suits my style. Pants that come in short lengths usually work well for me.

11 years ago

Diana

Veteran

The 50% legs measurement is taken from the hip bone, not the crotch. It's based on the idea of the "ideal" human form (essentially the Leonardo Davinci man, which is not really ideal especially for women, but that is a different story). This is essentially the method Imogen uses in her proportion exercise that we did a while ago (with the 8 head lengths), and how she says that most clothing is proportioned.
http://www.insideoutstyleblog......ained.html

I am 5'3.5" and have a 31.5" inseam in bare feet (which is very leggy for my height). I've never been able to buy petite pants. Conversely, though, I have the world's shortest torso. =P My fiance is 6+ inches taller than me, but has a really long torso and short legs; we have the same inseam! (And my pants are actually longer because I usually wear 1-2" heels.)

ETA: My hip bone is about 4" above my crotch. I think I have a high hip though, so let's assume 3" for the sake of argument.

So, for a 5' (60") tall person 50% is 30". Subtract the 3" between hip and crotch and that would give you an "ideal" inseam of 27" in flats. For me (63.5"), 50% is 31.75". Minus 3" = 28.75". No wonder I can never wear pants meant for women of my height!

11 years ago

K. Period.

Veteran

I think I'm in the same boat as Diana (hi, shipmate!).

Ruth, especially since you said you have a longer rise, I say don't worry about shopping petites for bottoms! I'm somewhere between 5' 4" and 5' 5", but short waisted, which means long legged. I pick and choose petites according to my purposes and it makes a huge difference.

I wear many tops (especially short sleeved ones) from petites, I buy most dresses from petites, and I buy some coats from petites. I never buy petite pants. I sometimes buy petite skirts (when the shorter hemline works) and sometimes not. From Banana Republic, if a shirt, dress or coat has a fitted waist, I always buy petite when I can.

The key is to keep you eye focused on fit, not on labeling! Sound a bit like sizing advice?

11 years ago

Anonymous

Okay, shiny: The 29-inch leg length works out to be about 47% of my 62-inch height. I think my sitting-down height is 31 inches, which is half my 62-inch height. Like I said, I determined I'm short-waisted by using Imogen's hand width measurement technique and also by measuring my body by head lengths. With the head length method, I figured out I'm short in the waist, long in the rise, and short in the legs. Does any of this make sense?

I can wear certain brands of petite pants, but not others. I wear petite pants that are not cut too short in the rise, and brand matters.

Same goes with tops. It all comes down to the way certain brands fit. Regular tops almost always fit well in the shoulders, so it's rare for me to find a regular top (as long as it's not long-sleeved) that doesn't fit.

I always wear petite dresses, skirts, coats, and long-sleeved tops.

It just puzzles me that petite pants supposedly designed for women 5 ft. 3 in. and under (sometimes 5 ft. 4 in. and under) are so short. Like I said, I can make a 29-inch inseam work with flats and a 30-inch inseam work with low- to mid-height heels. Those inseams are not that easy to find in petite sizes, though.

11 years ago

April

Veteran

The shortness of many petite pants is maddening. I'm also 5'2" with similar proportions, Ruth, and I've all but given up on finding petite pants that will work with even a 1.5" heel, which is about all I ever wear.

As I have asked many times, "Who are they making these for -- third-graders?"

11 years ago

shiny

Veteran

That still doesn't sound quite right to me, but maybe I have an oddly shaped body!

Height-- 60 inches
Inseam -- 28 inches
distance from high hip (I assume top of hip bone, correct?) to floor -- 35 inches.
distance from high hip to crotch -- about 9 inches (reason I prefer long rises and often find that regular pants fit better than petites???)

If you do the calculation, 35/60, that puts me at a whopping 58% ... which implies I am quite leggy... and I don't think anyone in their right mind would judge me as leggy!!!!

Or did I do something wrong?

Wait... crotch to hip can't be that long... 35-28 is 7 inches. I guess it is difficult to measure one's distance from crotch to hip, without help! Except I can assure you, if I was to put on 7 inch rise jeans, they'd be far, far below my high hip...

11 years ago

Anonymous

I don't want to get too analytical with all this. My senior brain can only take so much math, lol! I just wonder, okay, if at 5 ft. 2 in. tall I have trouble finding pants that are long enough, what do the taller petites do? Or are my legs longer in proportion to height than their legs?

11 years ago

Suz

(website)

Veteran

Ruth, I have proportions a bit like yours from the sounds of it, except I am 5' 4". But I'm short waisted, a bit long in the rise, average-legged. I have always thought my legs were short, and they certainly are not LONG for my height, but when I did the measurements, I learned that they are actually quite proportional. What IS out of whack is my head size, which is huge! But that's another issue.

I wear petite jackets, some coats, shirts (sometimes), dresses, skirts.

I NEVER wear petite pants. They don't feel comfortable in the rise. And they are always too short, even for flats.

I think most women over 5' 2" simply don't wear petites! At least not for trousers.

Angie generally recommends shopping in the regular section for pants unless you are smaller than 5' I think.

ETA: I just realized that I DO own one pair of petite pants. They are Ann Taylor Modern Fit skinny jeans. The reason they work is that for me, they are skinnies with no scrunch. They cover my ankle bone but have no extra fabric at the bottom. Oh - and I bought them a size up, so they are a bit loose and also therefore a bit longer.

11 years ago

Diana

Veteran

Shiny, I think Imogen said the hip measurement is where your leg bends, like when you sit down. So I guess where the hip joint is in front? It's far lower than my high hip.

11 years ago

Keix

Veteran

I'm 5'2.5" with a 28.5" inseam, and I have the opposite problem as all of you--the petite pants I find have an inseam of 30", and since I don't wear heels, it's too short to easily hem or make PPL with heels (most of mine are 2.5-3.5").

I do think I have proportionally short legs because my torso is long enough that I sometimes have problems with the length of petite tops. And I prefer a low rise (7.5" sweet spot) because mid- and most high-rise pants cut my midsection in half due to how I carry weight in the lower torso.

Ruth, where are you finding all of these 29" petite pants? And I only know of a few sources for 28" inseams, not particularly fashion-forward places like Lands' End.

11 years ago

shiny

Veteran

Diana-- that makes more sense to me, except I am pretty sure where my hip bends is at my crotch point aka inseam?

Okay.. DH just measured me, since I wasn't sure I was doing it right by myself. He measured me sitting, from seat to top of head -- 32 inches. Then we measured from hip crease (while sitting? what would you call this?) to knee and down to foot... 32 inches! Which adds up to 64 inches but I'm only 60 inches tall!

I think what Imogen may have meant, and what other sites suggest, is that you take the measurement sitting straight on a chair, from top of head to seat of the chair. For me that is 32 inches. 60-32= 28... which happens to be my inseam. This is not 50-50, but is very much within proportionate and average. I am not leggy, but by no means do I have stubby legs either.

Suz and KL -- I absolutely could wear more petite pants, the length isn't awful for me, especially for styles I want to wear with flats. But even if length is fine, the issue is with the RISE. And that has everything to do with middle age and having had two children, and no matter how much exercise I do, still having a "mother's apron" to deal with. My greater gripe with petites is that they assume "junior" slimness.

I was in TJ Maxx the other day and ran into this woman, Asian, maybe 60 years old. We were both looking through the same size on the petite rack. And commiserating. There are a lot a lot a lot of petite older than 40 women. Women have gotten taller over the years. And yet, the clothes just Do. Not. Fit. Especially if you want some style. The petite departments (other than, say BR and AT) are such a boring horrible snore.

/my usual rant

11 years ago

Anonymous

Shiny: I found an old Color Me Beautiful book last night that says you have a proportional body if your leg length (measured from crotch to floor) is half your height. My crotch-to-floor (inseam) measurement is 29 inches, which is less than half my height. I also took my upper body measurement sitting down, and it's 33 inches. That makes sense, I think, because 33 + 29 = 62. It also confirms what I have pretty much known all along--that my legs are indeed on the short side. So why in the world the petite-sized pants are mostly 28 (and sometimes even 27) inches is beyond me. I can only conclude that the clothing manufacturers have a major problem with PPL. This explains, at least in my mind, why you see all these catalog and online photos of models wearing pants that are too short for the shoes they're wearing. Hope this helps.

KL: I find the 29-inch and 30-inch inseams at Coldwater Creek. Just about every other petite retailer I know has shorter inseams (28 inches usually) for petites. I also wear regular misses pants that come in a short 30-inch inseam length. My Express Editors are regular misses short. Whenever I wear heels, I need a 30-inch inseam. Hope this helps.

As for the rise measurement of petite pants, it again depends on the brand. Some fit fine; others don't. One important lesson I've learned is that I do best with lower-waisted pants; you know, the ones that are supposed to sit just below the waist. Those pants seem to be the ones that fit without the usual gapping at the waist that I get with the "classic fit" (sits at the waist) pants.

I almost never have problems with tops being too short, so I don't think I'm too long in the torso; though sometimes regular misses' tops can be too long, and certain petite tops can be too short. Again, it depends on the brand. Same goes for shoulder fit and sleeve length.

In the end, I know that it's not my body that has the problem. It's the way the clothing is cut. I manage to find plenty of ready-made clothing that fits without alteration, and I'm grateful for that. The inseam length of petite pants has always puzzled me, though, and I envy men who can buy pants based on waist and inseam measurements. The clothing manufacturers don't seem to care much about the difficulties women face in finding pants that fit properly.

11 years ago

shiny

Veteran

Sorry I don't mean to be a pest, but that old book is just plain wrong: 50% is not proportional nor average nor normal... it means you have long legs, like a model or a Barbie doll. It's misinformation like this that makes so many women hate their bodies and think there's something wrong with them, so I feel compelled to interject.

Here is a better explanation:
http://ladyshortlegs.blogspot......tions.html

Inseam/height:

For you
29/62 = 46%

For me
28/60 = 46%

"Apparently the average woman has legs that are at least 45% of her total height. 48% and up is considered aesthetic and preferred."

Sitting height/total height:

For you
33/62 = 53%

For me
32/60 = 53%

" If your torso ratio is .52 or .53, you are completely within the normal range, and also very average too by the way. You should have a longer torso than your legs by the way, most humans do. If you're below .52, then you have very long legs for your torso.

"The mean Cormic Index for European and Indo-Mediterranean populations is about 0.52. Africans have proportionally longer legs, in general, with ratios around 0.51. Asian and Far Eastern populations have proportionally shorter legs and means of 0.53-0.54 (Pheasant, 1986)."

As for the petite pants length, I thought of another angle on that. Is it possible that PPL is a recent trend? I never considered wearing my pants so long they swallow my shoes, not until finding YLF, and watching shows like WNTW. It makes sense, it is way more flattering and elongating. Just saying that perhaps it is a recent development and clothing manufacturers have yet to catch up with it? Probably the mass market has yet to catch on too. Petites or no, I wore my pants hems much higher before I got clued in. When I go to get things hemmed, I have to argue with the tailor "longer please"...

11 years ago

Suz

(website)

Veteran

I think some of the confusion may arise because some systems of measurement include the head in the upper body measurement and some do not.

In the end I think we can just eyeball ourselves. I now understand that my legs are not technically "short" for my size...but my other combined proportions still make them APPEAR somewhat short. Therefore, adding a bit of a heel makes me feel better!

Re PPL - I DO think wearing pants longer is a relatively recent trend (if you count the 70s as relatively recent, LOL!) My mother, for example, would not wear her trousers quite that long. She used to tell me they should come to the top of your heel in the back or perhaps mid-way (depending on heel height) and break over your foot in front (these would be wider leg trousers).

And NOW, she prefers her trousers much shorter, because she is worried about falls. So some of the length may be driven by some customers' wishes for shorter.

11 years ago

Scarlet

Veteran

a.) why buy petite pants if they are too short? Is there some other aspect of your body that they are fitting better than a regular pant?

b.) most petite pants that I have seen have an inseam of 30 inches, which is still too long for me, personally.

c.) I am really only talking about premium denim. No experience with other kinds of pants. I don't even think about it anyway. I just hem everything.

11 years ago

Anonymous

Thanks, Shiny and Suz. I've never thought of myself as being disproportional. I've always liked my body. I just don't understand why petite pants are almost always too short for me. Like I said, only certain retailers (and they are few and far between) have petite pants in the 30-inch inseam I need for wearing heels. Either my legs are longer than average for a women my height (and I don't think they are) or most manufacturers don't think/care about PPL.

I have always preferred to wear heels, as I feel they help me look more proportional. PPL is not a new phenomenon; it's just that retailers photograph their models wearing pants that are too short for the shoes they're wearing. My mom was a stickler for PPL, and even when I was a child and she made all of my clothing (except for jeans), she'd make sure that both my pants length and my dress/skirt lengths were correct. What she taught me about PPL is the very same thing Angie preaches. (A shout out to Angie for making sure people know about PPL!) Shiny, if your tailor doesn't know about PPL, you need a new tailor. Just saying...

11 years ago

modgrl

(website)

Veteran

I'm 5' tall, no idea about my inseam but I my legs are proportionate. I think I'm probably Shiny's size/inseam. When I buy petite pants they are usually too long on me with flats. It's been a while since I bought pants though. Last pair I bought was in the spring, they were regular, not petite and I had them hemmed just slightly to wear PPL with heels.

11 years ago

Anonymous

Scarlet and modgirl: Certain brands of petite pants fit me better in the rise than regular misses pants. As I said, this is not always the case. In general, I wear both misses and petite sizes, depending on the brand and how they fit. Fit always trumps size, and I have various sizes in my closet! I learned a long time ago not to worry about what the size is on the tag.

I graduated from high school in 1979, and remember how we used to think someone was "expecting a flood" if their pants were too short. Yes, pants were supposed to be long when worn with heels. Some people took it to extremes and wore their pants too long, but the ones (like me) who knew better made sure their pants were the proper length.

As for being proportional, I read online (can't remember the website now) that even if you're proportional, elongating the leg line is still a good idea; that certain styles and silouettes can make your legs look too short in proportion to your height.

11 years ago

Scarlet

Veteran

Ah, and now the term "highwaters" is finally making sense to me.

11 years ago

Anonymous

Yep. That's where the term "high waters" came from, lol.

11 years ago

KoopaCooper

Member

I've often wondered about the "average" proportions of the body - I myself have quite short legs.

My height is 70ins, but my leg-break is a mere 30ins. I have a feeling that this comes from my mum being much shorter, at 61ins, while my dad is 73ins tall. As I've always put it "I have my mum's short legs and my dad's long upperbody"!

10 years ago

Gigi

Veteran

Ruth, have you always had this problem? I'm just wondering if your difficulties aren't a result of the ankle-length pant trend we're seeing now. I am 5'2" and like a 29-30-inch inseam. Thirty-one is a little too long. I think 28 and certainly 27 sound too short and might be a reflection of the new ankle-length pant trend.

10 years ago

Anonymous

Good point, Gigi. Actually, I think it might be that manufacturers are making pants shorter now, though I see plenty of older women wearing pants that are too short. Either they don't know about PPL or they're just wearing what they can find at the store. I remember the days when I always had to hem up my pants. I have the exact same issue as you do: 31 inches is too long. SIGH...

10 years ago

Category