How Many Feet Is 35? Quick Answer

Enter the value below.

Number in feet Number in feet to convert to feet Result in feet Converted value to feet Conversion

A foot (abbreviated “ft”) is a unit of length in the United States common and imperial measurement systems. The international convention defined both units as equivalent to 12 inches, and in both systems a foot equals 12 inches and a yard equals 3 feet.

History of foot measurement

Historically, the “foot” has been part of numerous measurement system units, including the English, French, Chinese, Roman, and Greek systems. The length of a foot varied from place to place and was divided into either 16 digits or 12 inches. The only developed country that uses the international foot instead of meters is the United States.

In the past, the basis of measurement was determined by a person’s foot. In fact, the foot length of a white male is about 15.3% of his height, which means that a 5ft 3in male’s foot is about 9.65 inches long. These numbers therefore varied over time, suggesting that the unit “foot” was synonymous with an actual human shoe. Archaeologists suggest that the Mesopotamians, Indians, and Egyptians used a cubit, while the Greeks and Romans used a foot. For the Egyptians, 16 digits or 4 palms equaled one foot. During the Bronze Age, most Indus cities used a foot, which was approximately 13.2 inches.

First use of the 12 inch foot

The typical Roman foot was about 11.64 inches long, which is about 97% of the measurements used today, but in the provinces people used the foot of Nero Drusus (which was about 13.15 inches long). Initially, the Romans divided their foot into 16 digits, but later they divided it into 12 unciae (which means ounce or inch in English). Jacob Koebel described the process of checking a foot in the 16th century.

The International Pound and Yard Convention of July 1959 defined the international foot as 12 inches, which was 1.7 ppm (parts per million) shorter than the United Kingdom’s original definition and 2 ppm shorter than the United States’. In the United States, a foot was estimated at 12 inches, with an inch being defined by the 1893 Mendenhall Order, which stated that a meter was equal to 39.37 inches.

Why 12 instead of 10?

12 is a standard number and is used in the 12 hour clock, there are 12 months in a year and 12 inches in a foot. But why use 12 instead of 10?

Historically, not every nation had a 12-hour clock; In fact, the Egyptians were the only ones with 12 hours for the night, 2 hours for the twilight, and 10 hours for the day. Therefore, the combination of 10 hours of day and 2 hours of twilight gives 12 hours of night and day.

There is much speculation as to why they counted in bases of twelve rather than ten, and this influenced various cultures over time. One school of thought says our fingers have three joints and if you count the joints with our thumbs we have twelve joints in both hands and that’s how they counted.

The Babylonians developed a base-60 counting system known as the sexagesimal system. The sexagesimal system is used to count time and has 12 factors. Also, mathematically speaking, 12 has more factors and is easier to subdivide compared to 10. The 12 counting system has been adopted by many cultures, including the Romans, who introduced the idea of ​​12 inches in a foot.

Height Comparison Tables

feet, inches cm, m feet and inches Height table feet, inches inches centimeters meters 4 feet 48 inches 121.92 cm 1.22 m 4 feet 1 inch 49 inches 124.46 cm 1.24 m 4 feet 2 inches 50 inches 127 cm 1.27 m 4 ft 3 in 51 in 129.54 cm 1.3 m 4 ft 4 in 52 in 132.08 cm 1.32 m 4 ft 5 in 53 in 134.62 cm 1.35 m 4 ft 6 in 54 in 137.16 cm 1.37 m 4 ft 7 in 55 in 139.7 cm 1.4 m 4 ft 8 in 56 in 142.24 cm 1.42 m 4 ft 9 in 57 in 144.78 cm 1, 45 m 4 ft 10 in 58 in 147.32 cm 1.47 m 4 ft 11 in 59 in 149.86 cm 1.5 m 5 ft 60 in 152.4 cm 1.52 m 5 ft 1 in 61 in 154, 94 cm 1.55 m 5 ft 2 in 62 in 157.48 cm 1.57 m 5 ft 3 in 63 in 160.02 cm 1.6 m 5 ft 4 in 64 in 162.56 cm 1.63 m centimeters height chart centimeters meters inches feet, inches 140 cm 1.4 m 55.1 in 4 ft, 7.1 in 141 cm 1.41 m 55.5 in 4 ft, 7.5 in 142 cm 1.42 m 55.9 in 4 ft 7.9 in 143 cm 1.43 m 56.3 in 4 ft 8.3 in 144 cm 1.44 m 56.7 in 4 ft 8.7 in 145 cm 1.45 m 57.1 in 4 feet, 9.1 in 146 cm 1 .46 m 57.5 in 4 ft, 9.5 in 147 cm 1.47 m 57.9 in 4 ft, 9.9 in 148 cm 1.48 m 58.3 in 4 ft, 10.3 in 149 cm 1.49 m 58.7 in 4 ft, 10.7 in 150 cm 1.5 m 59.1 in 4 ft, 11.1 in 151 cm 1.51 m 59.4 in 4 ft, 11.4 in 152 cm 1.52 m 59.8 in 4 ft, 11.8 in 153 cm 1.53 m 60.2 in 5 ft, 0.2 in 154 cm 1.54 m 60.6 in 5 ft, 0, 6 in 155 cm 1.55 m 61 in 5 ft, 1 in 156 cm 1.56 m 61.4 in 5 ft, 1.4 in 157 cm 1.57 m 61.8 in 5 ft, 1.8 in 158 cm 1.58 m 62.2 in 5 ft 2.2 in 159 cm 1.59 m 62.6 in 5 ft 2.6 in 160 cm 1.6 m 63 in 5 ft 3 in 161 cm 1, 61 m 63.4 in 5 ft, 3.4 in 162 cm 1.62 m 63.8 in 5 ft, 3.8 in 163 cm 1.63 m 64.2 in 5 ft, 4.2 in 164 cm 1 .64 m 64.6 in 5 ft 4.6 in 165 cm 1.65 m 65 in 5 ft 5 in 166 cm 1.66 m 65.4 in 5 ft 5.4 in 167 cm 1.67 m 65.7 in 5 ft, 5.7 in 168 cm 1.68 m 66.1 in 5 ft, 6.1 in 169 cm 1.69 m 66.5 in 5 ft, 6.5 in 170 cm 1.7 m 66.9 in 5 ft, 6.9 in 171 cm 1.71 m 67.3 in 5 ft, 7.3 in 172 cm 1.72 m 67.7 in 5 ft, 7.7 in 173 cm 1.73 m 68.1 in 5 ft, 8.1 in 174 cm 1.74 m 68.5 in 5 ft, 8.5 in 175 cm 1.75 m 68.9 in 5 ft, 8.9 in 176 cm 1.76 m 69.3 in 5 ft, 9.3 in 177 cm 1.77 m 69.7 in 5 ft, 9.7 Inches 178 cm 1.78 m 70.1 in 5 ft, 10.1 in 179 cm 1.79 m 70.5 in 5 ft, 10.5 in Feet and Inch Chart (5 ft 5+) Feet, Inches Inches Centimeters Meters 5 ft 5 in 65 in 165.1 cm 1.65 m 5 ft 6 in 66 in 167.64 cm 1.68 m 5 ft 7 in 67 in 1.73 m 1.83 m 6 ft 1 in 73 in 185 .42 cm 1.85 m 6 ft 2 in 74 in 187.96 cm 1.88 m 6 ft 3 in 75 in 190.5 cm 1.91 m 6 ft 4 in 76 in 193.04 cm 1.93 m 6 Feet 5 in 77 in 195.58 cm 1.96 m 6 ft 6 in 78 in 198.12 cm 1.98 m 6 ft 7 in 79 in 200.66 cm 2.01 m 6 ft 8 in 80 in 203.2 cm 2.03 m 6 ft 9 in 81 in 205.74 cm 2.06 m 6 ft 10 in 82 in 208.28 cm 2.08 m 6 ft 11 in 83 in 210.82 cm 2.11 m 7 ft 84 Inches 213.36 cm 2.13 m 7 ft 1 in 85 in 215.9 cm 2.16 m 7 ft 2 in 86 in ll 218.44 cm 2.18 m 7 ft 3 in 87 in 220.98 cm 2.21 m 7 ft 4 in 88 in 223.52 cm 2.24 m 7 ft 5 in 89 in 226.06 cm 2.26 m 7 ft 6 in 90 in 228.6 cm 2.29 m 7 ft 7 in 91 in 231.14 cm 2.31 m 7 ft 8 in 92 in 233.68 cm 2.34 m 7 ft 9 in 93 in 236 .22 cm 2.36 m 7 ft 10 in 94 in 238.76 cm 2.39 m 7 ft 11 in 95 in 241.3 cm 2.41 m 8 ft 96 in 243.84 cm 2.44 m conversions are based on maximum 1 or 2 decimal places rounded 1.82 m 71.7 in 5 ft, 11.7 in 183 cm 1.83 m 72 in 6 ft, 0 in 184 cm 1.84 m 72.4 in 6 ft, 0.4 in 185 cm 1.85 m 72.8 in 6 ft, 0.8 in 186 cm 1.86 m 73.2 in 6 ft , 1.2 in 187 cm 1.87 m 73.6 in 6 ft, 1, 6 in 188 cm 1.88 m 74 in 6 ft, 2 in 189 cm 1.89 m 74.4 in 6 ft, 2.4 in 190 cm 1.9 m 74.8 in 6 ft, 2.8 in 191 cm 1.91 m 75.2 in 6 feet, 3.2 in 192 cm 1.92 m 75.6 in 6 feet, 3.6 in 193 cm 1.93 m 76 in 6 feet, 4 in 19 195 cm 6 ft, 6 in 199 cm 1.99 m 78.3 in 6 ft, 6.3 in 200 cm 2 m 78.7 in 6 ft, 6, 7 in 201 cm 2.01 m 79.1 in 6 ft, 7.1 in 202 cm 2.02 m 79.5 in 6 ft, 7.5 in 203 cm 2.03 m 79.9 in 6 ft, 7 .9 in 204 cm 2.04 m 80.3 in 6 ft, 8.3 in 205 cm 2.05 m 80.7 in 6 ft, 8.7 in 206 cm 2.06 m 81.1 in 6 ft, 9.1 in 207 cm 2.07 m 81.5 in 6 ft, 9.5 in 208 cm 2.08 m 81.9 in 6 ft, 9.9 in 209 cm 2.09 m 82.3 in 6 ft , 10.3 in 210 cm 2.1 m 82.7 in 6 ft, 10.7 in 211 cm 2.11 m 83.1 in 6 ft, 11.1 in 212 cm 2.12 m 83.5 in 6 Feet, 11.5 in 213 cm 2.13 m 83.9 in 6 ft, 11.9 in 214 cm 2.14 m 84.3 in 7 ft, 0.3 in 215 cm 2.15 m 84.6 in 7 ft, 0.6 in 216 cm 2.16 m 85 in 7 ft, 1 in 217 cm 2.17 m 85.4 in 7 ft, 1.4 in 218 cm 2.18 m 85.8 in 7 ft, 1.8 in 219 cm 2.19 m 86.2 in 7 ft, 2.2 in 220 cm 2.2 m 86.6 in 7 ft, 2.6 in Conversions are rounded to a maximum of 1 or 2 decimal places

Use these conversion charts to quickly look up common sizes and conversions to feet, inches, centimeters, and meters. We have a custom page for converting 175cm to feet.

If you want to convert a number of centimeters that is not listed in this table, try our cm, feet and inches converter or our cm and inches converter.

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to compile this height chart, we cannot be held responsible for any damage or financial loss arising out of or related to its use. Full Disclaimer. This tool is provided here as a convenience to you only, please use it at your own risk.

If you have any suggestions for this height conversion table, please contact me.

Conversion from feet + inches to centimeters

Feet ft inches in = Convert × Reset Swap Centimeters cm Meters m Centimeters cm Calculation

cm to feet+inches ►

How to convert feet + inches to centimeters

1 foot equals 30.48 centimeters:

1 foot = 30.48cm

1 inch equals 2.54 centimeters:

1 inch = 2.54cm

The distance d in centimeters (cm) is equal to the distance d in feet (ft) times 30.48 plus the distance d in inches (in) times 2.54:

d (cm) = d (feet) × 30.48 + d (inches) × 2.54

example

Convert 2 feet + 3 inches to centimeters:

d (cm) = 2 feet × 30.48 + 3 inches × 2.54 = 68.58 cm

Feet + inches to centimeters conversion table

Feet (ft) + inches (in) Centimeters (cm) 0 ft 0 in 0 cm 0 ft 1 in 2.54 cm 0 ft 2 in 5.08 cm 0 ft 3 in 7.62 cm 0 ft 4 in 10.16 cm 0 ft 5 in 12.70 cm 0 ft 6 in 15.24 cm 0 ft 7 in 17.78 cm 0 ft 8 in 20.32 cm 0 ft 9 in 22.86 cm 0 ft 10 in 25.40 cm 0 ft 11 in 27.94 cm 1 ft 0 in 30.48 cm 2 ft 0 in 60.96 cm 3 ft 0 in 91.44 cm 4 ft 0 in 121.92 cm 5 ft 0 in 152.40 cm 6 ft 0 Inches 182.88 cm 7 ft 0 in 213.36 cm 8 ft 0 in 243.84 cm 9 ft 0 in 274.32 cm 10 ft 0 in 304.80 cm 20 ft 0 in 609.60 cm 30 ft 0 in 914 .40 cm 40 ft 0 in 1219.20 cm 50 ft 0 in 1524.00 cm 60 ft 0 in 1828.80 cm 70 ft 0 in 2133.60 cm 80 ft 0 in 2438.40 cm 90 ft 0 in 2743.20 cm 100 cm, 0 inch 0 inch 0 inch 0 inch

cm to feet+inches ►

See also

Men tend to want a woman no taller than 6 feet, while women want a man no shorter than 5 feet 4 inches

A new YouGov study on height shows that both men and women tend to think that being slightly above average is ideal – but people are quite open-minded.

On average, women say that a romantic partner who is 5ft 3 inches or smaller is generally too small to be comfortable, while a partner who is 6ft 3 inches or taller is too tall and the “ideal” height for a man 5 feet 11 inches. The survey also found that for the average British man, a partner is too short at 4ft 11in and too tall at 6ft. The ideal height for a woman, according to the average man, is 5 feet 6 inches.

This specifically excludes 10% of men who say there is no too small and 9% who say no size is too big. Likewise, for 4% of women there is no “too small” and for 7% there is no “too big”.

The poll also sheds light on what it means to be an “average” man or woman when it comes to height. The average self-reported height for a woman is 5ft 4in and for a man 5ft 10in (response was asked to round to the nearest inch), meaning that both genders tend to fall just short of their counterpart’s preference.

The meaning of average

However, the vast majority fall into the “comfortable” Goldilocks range. A whopping 94% of men are between 5’4″ and 6’3″ tall, while 95% of women are between 5′ and 5’11”.

It should also be considered that these ranges are also based on average values ​​- overall there are differences in preferences, for example according to one’s own body size.

Women between 5′ and 5’7″ consider 5’11” to be ideal, but women over this height prefer a man who is 6’1″. Conversely, 47% of men between 1.80 and 1.80 m say that the ideal woman is between 1.70 and 1.60 m tall, compared to only 26% of men who are between 1.70 and 1.70 m Are 1.60m tall and want a woman in the same range.

YouGov also asked respondents what size they personally would ideally like to be. Females tend to be two inches taller than average while males tend to be an inch taller. In most cases – with the exception of males under 5ft 8″ and females under 5ft 4″ – the majority of people within a certain 4″ height range chose a size within their own range as a personal “ideal”.

Image: Getty

Update: The first graphic has been edited for clarity

Check out the full poll results

What is 5ft9 in cm? Convert 5 feet 9 to centimeters. Use the calculator above to convert between feet and centimeters.

Convert feet to cm feet cm

Feet to Centimeter Calculator is a free online tool that shows the conversion from feet to a centimeter. BYJU’s online feet to centimeters calculator performs the calculation faster and displays the conversion value in a fraction of a second.

Feet: This unit is typically used to measure height. For example, the height of a person, tree, building, etc.

A foot equals 30.48 centimeters.

1 foot = 30.48cm

and

10 feet = 304.8 cm

Hence foot is the singular form of feet.

Also, one foot equals 12 inches

1 foot = 12 inches

How do I convert feet to centimeters?

The procedure for using the feet to centimeters calculator is as follows:

Step 1: Enter the feet value in the input box

Step 2: Now click on the “Convert” button to get the conversion value

Step 3: Finally, the conversion from feet to centimeters is displayed in the output field

What is the conversion from feet to centimeters?

The Feet to Centimeter Calculator gives the conversion of measurements from feet to centimeters. The unit foot is represented by “ft” and the centimeter by “cm”. The centimeter is considered part of the metric system and is used in the international system of units. The foot unit is used in the US standard system of measurement. A foot is approximately 30.48 centimeters.

1 foot = 30.48cm

For example, the conversion from 5 ft to cm is as follows:

We know that 1 foot = 30.48 cm

So 5 feet = 5 x 30.48 cm

5 feet = 152.4 cm.

Therefore, the conversion from 5 feet to the centimeter is 152.4 cm.

feet + inches to centimeters

We would also come across the value of length in feet and inches. So to convert feet and inches to centimeters, we need to convert the value to inches in its entirety and then convert to cm.

As we know, 1 foot = 12 inches. Now if we multiply 12 inches by 2.54, we get the length value in centimeters. Check out some examples of human heights converted to centimeters:

5 feet 1 inch in cm = [(5×12)+1] x 2.54 = 61 x 2.54 = 154.94 cm

5 feet 2 inches in cm = [(5×12)+2] x 2.54 = 62 x 2.54 = 157.48 cm

5 feet 3 inches in cm = [(5×12)+3] x 2.54 = 63 x 2.54 = 160.02 cm

5 feet 4 inches in cm = [(5×12)+4] x 2.54 = 64 x 2.54 = 162.56 cm

5 feet 5 inches in cm = [(5×12)+5] x 2.54 = 65 x 2.54 = 165.1 cm

5 feet 6 inches in cm = [(5×12)+6] x 2.54 = 66 x 2.54 = 167.64 cm

5 feet 7 inches in cm = [(5×12)+7] x 2.54 = 67 x 2.54 = 170.18 cm

5 feet 8 inches in cm = [(5×12)+8] x 2.54 = 68 x 2.54 = 172.72 cm

5 feet 9 inches in cm = [(5×12)+9] x 2.54 = 69 x 2.54 = 175.26 cm

5 feet 10 inches in cm = [(5×12)+10] x 2.54 = 70 x 2.54 = 177.8 cm

Feet to centimeters conversion chart

The following is the feet to centimeters conversion table:

Feet (ft) Centimeters (cm) 1 ft 12″ 2 ft 24″ 3 ft 36″ 4 ft 48″ 5 ft 60″ 6 ft 72″ 7 ft 84″. 8ft 96″ 9ft 107″ 10ft 120″.

Solved examples

Example 1: Express the length of 5 feet 4 inches in cm.

Solution:

5 feet 4 inches in cm

We know that 1 foot = 12 inches

1 inch = 2.54cm

So, 5 feet 4 inches = [(5 × 12) + 4] × 2.54 cm

= 64 × 2.54cm

= 162.56cm

Therefore, 5 feet 4 inches equals 162.56 cm.

Example 2: Write 6 feet 5 inches in cm.

Solution:

We know that 1 foot = 12 inches

1 inch = 2.54cm

So, 6 feet 5 inches = [(6 × 12) + 5] × 2.54 cm

= 77 × 2.54cm

= 195.58cm

Therefore, 6 feet 5 inches equals 195.58 cm.

Your pregnancy countdown can get messed up pretty quickly. Are you 13 weeks pregnant or 14 weeks? First or second trimester? Three months pregnant or four?

Luckily, the answers are (relatively) simple once you know what’s at stake. Here’s what you need to know about how many weeks, months, and trimesters pregnancy is — and where you fit in.

How many weeks does a pregnancy last?

Pregnancy lasts 40 weeks (or 280 days). Your due date is calculated from the first day of your last menstrual period (although most pregnancies are not conceived until two weeks later). Keep in mind that only about 30 percent of pregnancies reach exactly 40 weeks.

How many weeks is a trimester?

There are 13 or 14 weeks per trimester. (Just divide 40 by three and you’ll see why the breakdown isn’t exact.)

How many trimesters is a pregnancy?

There are three trimesters in a pregnancy: the first trimester, which lasts from week 1 to week 13, the second trimester, which lasts from week 14 to week 27, and the third trimester, which lasts from week 28 to week 40 (and up). . .

Is the pregnancy nine or ten months long?

Your 40 weeks of pregnancy are counted as nine months. But wait… there are four weeks in a month, which would make 40 weeks into 10 months. Right? Not exactly.

Four weeks is 28 days, but months (except February of course) have 30 or 31 days, making each month about 4.3 weeks long.

How many weeks does a full term pregnancy last?

If you are carrying a single baby, a full-term pregnancy is between the beginning of the 39th week and the end of the 40th week. If you are carrying twins, a full-term pregnancy is considered at least 38 weeks.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) uses the following terms for pregnancy, depending on when your baby will be born:

Premature babies: 20 weeks to 37 weeks

20 weeks to 37 weeks Lead time: 37 weeks to 38 weeks 6 days

: 37 weeks to 38 weeks 6 days Full term: 39 weeks to 40 weeks 6 days

39 weeks to 40 weeks 6 days Post-Term: 41 weeks to 41 weeks 6 days

41 weeks to 41 weeks 6 days Post Term: after 42 weeks

Pregnancy months to weeks chart

Here’s a simple breakdown of the approximate count of weeks, months, and trimesters in pregnancy:

trimester 1

Month 1: Weeks 1 to 4

Weeks 1 to 4 Month 2: Weeks 5 to 8

Weeks 5 to 8 Month 3: Weeks 9 to 13

trimester 2

Month 4: weeks 14 to 17

Weeks 14 to 17 Month 5: Weeks 18 to 22

Weeks 18 to 22 Month 6: Weeks 23 to 27

trimester 3rd

Month 7: Weeks 28 to 31

Weeks 28 to 31 Month 8: Weeks 32 to 35

Weeks 32 to 35 Month 9: Weeks 36 to 40

How do I know what week I am currently in my pregnancy?

Your doctor says you’re 15 weeks pregnant, but you also hear you’re 16 weeks pregnant. What is right? The short answer: both.

It turns out that gestational week is slightly different than gestational age. If you are at week 16, you are actually 15 weeks and a few days pregnant. Fifteen full weeks have passed but not 16 weeks so people say you are both 15 and 16 weeks pregnant.

For clarification, think of birthdays. By the time you turned 1 year old you were done with your first year and starting your second. In other words, on your first birthday you were on the first day of your second year. But no one said you were 2 years old until you finished your second year and started your third.

The same rules apply when talking about your weeks of pregnancy: you are x weeks pregnant but at your x+1 weeks gestation.

Wondering how your doctor guessed your due date? It is calculated from the first day of your last menstrual period (LMP), not the day you conceived. So try to remember the first day of your last period and add 40 weeks to it.

You can also calculate your due date using the following formula:

Subtract three months from the first day of your last menstrual period

Add seven days

Add a year

For example, if the first day of your last menstrual period was June 2, 2022, subtract three months to get March 2, 2022. Add seven days and you get March 9, 2022. Finally, add a year to find your estimate due date of March 9, 2023.

Why is pregnancy calculated from your last period?

Why start the pregnancy clock before sperm even meets egg (and actually, before your ovary even dropped the fateful egg that produced your baby)? Using your last period is simply a more reliable metric to date pregnancy. Even if you’re a master of cervical mucus and are sure about the day you ovulated and the day(s) you had sex, you probably can’t pinpoint the exact time of conception.

That’s because there’s a larger window of opportunity than you might think: Sperm can hang around three to five days after they arrive, waiting for an egg to be fertilized, and an egg can be fertilized for up to 24 hours after it’s released. This is also good news because it means that by the time you miss your period, you are already four weeks pregnant.

Usual unit of length

This article is about the unit of measurement. For human foot sizing, see shoe size. For other uses, see Foot (disambiguation)

Feet System of Units British/US Units Unit of Length Symbol ft or ′ Conversions 1 ft in… …equals… Imperial/US Units 1 / 3 yd

12 in metric (SI) units 0.3048 m

30.48cm

304.8mm

The foot (pl. feet), standard symbol: ft, [1][2] is a unit of length in the British Imperial and United States systems of measurement. The dash symbol ′ is a commonly used alternative symbol.[3] Since the International Yard and Pound Agreement of 1959, a foot has been precisely defined as 0.3048 metres. In both standard and imperial units, a foot is 12 inches and a yard is three feet.

Historically, the “foot” has been part of many local systems of units, including the Greek, Roman, Chinese, French, and English systems. It varied in length from country to country, city to city, and sometimes trade to trade. Its length usually ranged from 250 mm to 335 mm and was generally, but not always, subdivided into 12 inches or 16 digits.

The United States is the only industrialized nation to favor the international foot and survey foot (a common unit of length) over the meter in its commercial, engineering, and standardization activities. The foot is legally recognized in the UK; Road signs are required to use imperial units (however, distances on road signs are always given in miles or yards rather than feet), while their use as a measure of height is widespread among the British public. The foot is recognized in Canada as an alternative expression of length[7] and is officially defined as a unit derived from the meter[8], although both the United Kingdom and Canada have adopted some metric units of measurement. Altitude measurement in international aviation is one of the few areas where the foot is used outside of the English-speaking world.

The international foot length is equivalent to a human foot with shoe size 13 (UK), 14 (US men), 15.5 (US women) or 48 (EU size).

Historical origin[ edit ]

Geometrei by determining the pole based on the length of the left foot of 16 randomly selected people coming out of the service. Woodcut from the book by Jakob Köbel (Frankfurt, around 1535).

Historically, the human body has been used as the basis for units of length.[9] The foot of an adult Caucasian male typically accounts for about 15.3% of his height,[10] giving a 175 cm (5 ft 9 in) person a foot length of about 268 mm (10.6 in) on average.

Archaeologists believe that in the past, people in Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia preferred the cubit, while people in Rome, Greece, and China preferred the foot. Under the Harappan linear measurements, Indus cities during the Bronze Age used a 333.5 mm (13.2 in) foot and a 528.3 mm (20.8 in) cubit. The Egyptian equivalent of the foot – a measure of four palms or 16 digits – was known as the djeser and has been reconstructed to be around 30 cm (11.8 in).

The Greek foot (πούς, pous) had a length of 1/600th of a stadium,[12] a stadium was about 181.2 m (594 ft);[13] therefore a foot was then about 302 mm (11.9 in ). Its exact size varied from city to city and could range from 270 mm (10.6 in) to 350 mm (13.8 in), but the lengths used in temple construction appear to be around 295 mm (11.6 in) to 325 mm (12.8 inches) to have been. ; The former was almost as big as the Roman foot.

The standard Roman foot (pes) was usually about 295.7 mm (11.6 in) (97% of today’s measurement),[14] but in the provinces the so-called pes drusianus (foot of Nero Claudius Drusus) was used, of a length of about 334 mm (13.1 in). (Actually, this foot was older than Drusus.)[15]

Originally both the Greeks and Romans divided the foot into 16 digits, but in later years the Romans also divided the foot into 12 unciae (from which the two English words “inch” and “ounce” derive).

After the fall of the Roman Empire, some Roman traditions continued, but others fell into disuse. In AD 790, Charlemagne attempted to reform the units of measurement in his dominions. His units of length were based on the toise, and specifically the toise de l’Écritoire, the distance between the fingertips of a man’s outstretched arms.[16] The Toise has 6 pieds (feet) each measuring 326.6 mm (12.9 inches).

He failed to introduce a standard unit of length throughout his empire: an analysis of the measurements of Charlieu Abbey shows that the 296.1 mm (11.66 in) Roman foot was used in the 9th century; When it was rebuilt in the 10th century, a foot of about 320 mm (12.6 in) [note 1] was used. Concurrently, monastic buildings used the 340 mm (13.4 in) Carolingian foot. [Note 1] [17]

The procedure for examining the foot as described in the work of Jacob Köbel, published posthumously in the 16th century, in his book Geometrei. From artificial field measurement and refrain is:[18][19]

Stand at the door of a church on a Sunday and ask 16 men, big and small, to stop as they happen to pass out when the service is over; then let them put their left feet in line, and the length thus obtained shall be a right and lawful cross, to measure and measure the land with, and the 16th part of it shall be the right and lawful foot.

England [ edit ]

The Neolithic longfoot, first proposed by archaeologists Mike Parker Pearson and Andrew Chamberlain, is based on calculations from studies of Phase 1 elements at Stonehenge. They found that the underlying diameters of the stone circles were consistently laid out in multiples of a base unit of 30 long feet, which they calculated to be 1.056 modern international feet (i.e. 12.672 inches or 0.3219 m). In addition, this entity is identifiable by the dimensions of some of the rockfalls at the site and the diameter of the “southern circle” at nearby Durrington Walls. Evidence that this unit was widespread throughout southern Britain is found in the Yorkshire folkton drums (Neolithic chalk artefacts with a circumference divisible exactly as integers into ten long feet) and a similar object, the lavant drum excavated at Lavant, Sussex, again with a circumference divisible as an integer into ten long feet.[20]

The measures of Iron Age Britain are uncertain and proposed reconstructions such as the Megalithic Yard are controversial. Later Welsh legend credited Dyfnwal Moelmud with founding their units, including a foot of 9 inches. The Belgian or North German foot of 335 mm (13.2 in) was introduced to England either by the Belgian Celts during their invasions before the Romans, or by the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th and 6th centuries.

Roman units were introduced after their invasion in AD 43. After the Roman retreat and Saxon invasions, the Roman foot continued to be used in building trades, while the Belgian foot was used for land surveying. Both the Welsh and Belgian feet appear to be based on multiples of the stye, but as early as 950 the English kings appear to have (ineffectively) decreed measures to be based on an iron standard at Winchester and then London. Henry I is said to have decreed a new standard to be based on the length of his own arm, and by the c. 1300 Act of Composing Yards and Perches [21], traditionally attributed to Edward I or II, the statutory foot was a different measure, exactly 10/11 of the old (Belgian) foot. The stye, inch, cubit, and cubit also shrunk, while rods and furlongs remained the same.[22] The ambiguity as to the state of the mile was resolved by the Act 1593 Against the Conversion of Large Houses into Several Tenements and for the Restraint of Inmates and Enclosures in and near the City of London and Westminster, which recognized the statutory mile as 5,280 feet codified. The differences between the various physical standard yards around the world, uncovered by increasingly powerful microscopes, eventually led to the introduction of the international foot, defined in terms of meters, in 1959.

definition [edit]

The International Yard and Pound Convention of July 1959 defined the length of the international yard in the United States and Commonwealth of Nations countries as exactly 0.9144 metres. Consequently (since a foot is one-third of a yard), the international foot is defined to be exactly 0.3048 meters. This was 2 ppm shorter than the previous US definition and 1.7 ppm longer than the previous UK definition.[23]

The 1959 agreement completed a series of gradual events, prompted notably by the British Standards Institution’s acceptance in 1930 of a scientific standard duty of 25.4 millimetres.

icon [ edit ]

The IEEE standard symbol for a foot is “ft”.[1] In some cases the foot is denoted by a dash, often approximated by an apostrophe, and the inch by a double dash; for example, 2 feet 4 inches is sometimes referred to as 2′ 4″.[3]

Imperial units[ edit ]

In imperial units, the foot has been defined as 1/3 yard, realizing the yard as a physical standard (separate from the standard meter). The shipyard standards of the various Commonwealth countries were regularly compared.[24] The value of the shipyard’s UK primary standard was set in meters by the National Physical Laboratory in 1964 at 0.9143969 m, implying a pre-1959 UK ft of 0.3047990 m.

The UK introduced international shipyard for all purposes by the Weights and Measures Act 1963, which came into force on 1 January 1964.[26]

When the international foot was defined in 1959, much census data based on the earlier definitions was already available, particularly in the United States and India. The small difference between the survey foot and the international foot would not be detectable in a survey of a small parcel, but becomes significant for mapping or when using the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) in the United States because the origin of the system can Hundreds of thousands of feet (hundreds of miles) from the point of interest. Therefore, the earlier definitions continued to be used for surveying in the United States and India for many years, and were called survey feet to distinguish them from the international foot. The United Kingdom was unaffected by this problem, as the re-triangulation of Great Britain (1936–62) had been done in meters.

In the United States, the foot was defined as 12 inches, with the inch defined by the Mendenhall Order of 1893 as 39.37 inches = 1 m (making a US foot exactly 1200/3937 meters, approximately 0.30480061 m ). 28] Of 50 states and six other jurisdictions, 40 have legislated that cadastral surveys should be conducted based on the US standard of measurement, six have legislated that they should be conducted based on the international standard, and ten have not specified so .[29]

State legislation is also important in determining the conversion factor to use for day-to-day land surveying and real estate transactions, although the difference (two parts per million) has no practical meaning given the accuracy of normal surveying measurements over short distances (usually much less than one). Mile).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Geodetic Survey and US Department of Commerce will issue the US survey foot beginning in 2023.[30][31][27] However, its relevance may remain, as the Federal Register Notice states:[32]

“December 31, 2022 has been selected to accompany the modernization of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) by NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The rationale for associating the deprecation of the US base of measurement with the modernization of the NSRS is that the greatest impact of the consistent introduction of the international base will be for users of the NSRS, due to the very large coordinate values ​​currently used in US base of measurement in many areas of the USA are indicated. Impacts associated with the transition to international feet will be minimized if a transition occurs concurrently with other changes in the NSRS.”

“The difference will not impact users of the existing NSRS (National Spatial Reference System) as NGS (NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey) will continue to support the US survey foot for components of the NSRS where it is used now and in the past. In other words, to minimize disruption when using the US survey foot for existing NSRS coordinate systems, the change only applies to the modernized NSRS.”

The Indian survey foot is defined as exactly 0.3047996 m,[33] presumably derived from a measurement of the Court’s earlier Indian Standard. The current National Topographic Database of the Survey of India is based on the WGS-84 metric datum,[34] which is also used by the Global Positioning System.

Historical use[ edit ]

Textbook of the entire arithmetic for the fourth class of the secondary schools in the k.k. States – 1848[35] (Combined mathematics textbook for the fourth grade of secondary schools in the Imperial and Royal lands.) Page from Austria – 1848 (Combined mathematics textbook for the fourth grade of secondary schools in the Imperial and Royal lands.)

An ISO 2848 measure of 3 basic modules (30 cm) is called a “metric foot”, but there used to be different definitions of a metric foot during metric in France and Germany.

France [ edit ]

In 1799 the meter became the official unit of length in France. This was not fully enforced, and in 1812 Napoleon introduced the system of mesures usuelles, which restored traditional French retail measurements but redefined them in metric units. The foot or pied metrique has been defined as one-third of a meter. This unit continued to be used until 1837.[36]

Germany [edit]

In southwest Germany, the Confederation of the Rhine was formed in 1806 and defined three different reformed feet, all based on the metric system:[37]

In Hesse, the foot was redefined to 25 cm.

(feet) has been redefined to 25 cm. In Baden, the foot was redefined to 30 cm.

was redefined to 30 cm. In the Palatinate, the foot was redefined to 33 + 1/3 cm (as in France).

Other Legacy Feet[edit]

Before the adoption of the metric system, many European cities and countries used the foot, but its length varied widely: the voet in Ypres, Belgium was 273.8 millimeters (10.78 in), while the piede in Venice was 347.73 millimeters (13.690 inches) was ). Lists of conversion factors between the various units of measurement have been given in many European reference works, including:

Many of these standards were specific to a particular city, particularly in Germany (which before German unification in 1871 consisted of many kingdoms, principalities, free cities, etc.). In many cases the length of the unit was ambiguous: for example, the English foot was given as 11 pouces 2.6 lignes (French inches and lines) by Picard, 11 pouces 3.11 lignes by Maskelyne, and 11 by D’Alembert Pouces 3 Lignes.[45]

Most of the different feet in this list fell into disuse when countries adopted the metric system. The Netherlands and modern Belgium adopted the metric system in 1817 after using the mesures usuelles under Napoleon[46] and the newly formed German Empire adopted the metric system in 1871.[47]

The palm (typically 200 mm to 280 mm) was used in place of the foot in many Mediterranean cities. Horace Doursther, whose reference [clarification needed] was published in Belgium, which had the smallest foot measurements, grouped both units together, while J.F.G. Palaiseau devoted three chapters to units of length: one for measures of length (palms and feet), one for measures of cloth (cubits), and one for distances traveled (miles and leagues). In the table below, arbitrary switch-off points of 270 mm and 350 mm have been chosen.

(In Belgium, the words pied (French) and voet (Dutch) would have been used interchangeably.)

Notes [edit]

a b c d The source document used pre-metric French units (pied, pouce and lignes) ^ The original meter was calculated using pre-metric French units ^ The Norwegian fot was defined in 1824 as the length of a (theoretical) pendulum which would have a period of 12/38 seconds at 45° from the equator ^ Before 1835 the pé or foot was not used in Portugal – a palm was used instead. In 1835 the size of the palm was increased from 217.37mm (according to Palaiseau) to 220mm ^ The Scottish foot was no longer legal after the Act of Union 1707

Today’s uses[ edit ]

International ISO standard and other intermodal shipping containers [ edit ]

Intermodal containers defined by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for efficient global freight/freight shipment were defined using feet instead of meters for their front external dimensions (corners). To date, all ISO standard containers are eight feet wide and their exterior heights and lengths are also primarily defined in feet or derived from feet.

Global shipping container volumes are still mainly counted in twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEU.

Aviation[ edit ]

Everyday global (civil) air travel/aviation continues to be controlled at flight levels (altitudes) separated by thousands of feet (although usually read in hundreds – e.g. flight level 330 actually means 33,000 feet or about 10 kilometers altitude) .

dimension [ edit ]

In measurement, the term “linear foot” (sometimes incorrectly called “linear foot”) refers to the number of feet in a length of material (such as wood or fabric) without regard to width; it is used to distinguish from surface area in square feet.[57]

See also[edit]

Notes [edit]

a b The original reference was given in round centimeters

How big is 1 foot? definition and examples.

1 foot is a unit of length in the common measurement system, equal to 12 inches.

You might want to think of 1 foot as the average length of a human foot because that’s how it was originally defined.

However, unless you have really big feet, your foot is unlikely to measure 12 inches in length.

Things around your house that measure 1 foot or 12 inches.

The height of a two liter soda bottle is approximately 1 foot or 12 inches

The length (longest side) of the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 is approximately 6 inches. Therefore, the length of two Samsung Galaxy Note 4 is about 12 inches.

The length of an adult’s forearm from elbow to wrist is approximately 12 inches.

Results: A strong correlation was found between right foot length and height (r=0.999, p<0.001) and between left foot length and height (r=0.996, p<0.001). A negative association was shown between height and the length of the first (r=-0.180, p=0.004) and second (r=-0.155, p=0.014) toes on the right foot. In addition, a similar adverse correlation was found between height and length of the first toe on the left foot (r = -0.186, p = 0.003). A positive association between height and foot length was significant in both sexes, but a direct association between foot width and height was only significant in women, not men. The association between height and first toes was significant only in males. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 250 healthy medical professionals (125 males and 125 females) aged 18 to 59 years. Foot parameters including foot length, foot width and toe size in both right and left legs were measured with a single measuring device. The subjects' height was also measured in the upright anatomical position using a stadiometer. Abstract Background: Estimating height by measuring foot measurements can be useful under special conditions, such as e.g. B. in forensic medicine, be very important. The current study attempted to assess the relationship between height and foot bone parameters in a sample of Iranian adults. Copyright: © 2016 Memarian A, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided attribution is given. keywords Height; Foot; Dimensions; Iran introduction Growth as a natural process is evaluated by measuring parameters from birth such as elongation and thickening of bones and other body characteristics that make up overall body size. Stature is a significant physical identity and shows the height of a person when standing. The measurement of height includes the evaluation of dimensions of the legs, pelvis, spine and skull [1]. The discovery of a significant relationship between body size and the length of other bones has been considered the leading presentation of a physical formula for estimating body size by measuring long bones for many years [2,3]. This assessment can be very important under special circumstances such as forensic medical issues [4,5]. Especially Rutishauser et al. [6] found foot length to be a reliable predictor for estimating height. Since then, many attempts have been made to discover other predictors to determine altitude with greater accuracy and reliability. The use of foot bone indices may be more valuable because the maturation and ossification of these small bones occurs earlier than long bones and thus height can be predicted earlier by measuring foot parameters than by measuring long bone indices [7]. Individual identification based on the foot and its segments gains importance in mass disasters due to the likelihood of recovering the feet as they are locked in shoes [8]. The current study attempted to assess the relationship between height and foot bone parameters in a sample of Iranians. Materials and Processes This cross-sectional study was conducted on 250 consecutive healthy medical professionals (125 males and 125 females) aged 18-59 years treating Rasoul-e-Akram Hospital in Tehran in 2015. The participants belonged to different ethnic groups based in Iran. Foot parameters including foot length, foot width and toe size in both right and left foot were measured with a single measuring device. The foot length was measured using a vernier caliper (Mitutoyo, Japan) capable of measuring to within 0.01 mm. Foot width was measured using a line perpendicular to the projected long axis through the center of the first metatarsal head. The subjects' height was also measured in the upright anatomical position using a stadiometer. All measurements were taken by the same person to avoid personal bias. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and summarized by absolute frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The normality of the data was analyzed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test. The correlation between the study parameters was assessed using the Pearson correlation test or the non-parametric Spearman correlation test, both unadjusted and gender-adjusted. The statistical software SPSS version 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for the statistical analysis. P values ​​of 0.05 or less were considered statistically significant. Results The mean age of the participants was 39.38 ± 13.12 years (median 41.00 years, range 18 to 59 years). The mean overall height was 170.45 ± 12.93 cm (median 173.00 cm) and the mean body mass index was also 23.42 ± 4.21 kg/m2 (median 23.00 kg/m2). The average left and right foot lengths were 25.88 ± 1.96 cm (median 26.1 cm) and 25.83 ± 1.95 cm (median 26.2 cm), respectively. Table 1 shows the mean values ​​of the named variables for both sexes. N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Age Male 125 39.39 13132 1.175 Female 125 39.36 13168 1.178 Total 250 39.38 13.12 Height Male 125 170.65 1306 1168 Female 125 17026 12848 1168 Female 125 17026 12848 1168 125 125 25.25. Foot Length Male 125 25.779 1.9622 0.1755 Female 125 25.978 1.96 0.1753 Total 250 25.83 1.95 BMI Male 125 23.52 4.1262 0.3691 Female 125 23.32 4.3135 0.3858 Total 240 4.135 0.3858 The mean foot width was also 7.84 ± 5.74 cm (median 7.30 cm). Table 1: The mean of the variables by gender. As shown in Table 2, the mean lengths of the first to fifth toes on the right foot were 4.99, 4.68, 5.96, 4.25 and 3.22 cm, and the mean lengths of the first to fifth toes on the left foot were 4.99, 4.68, 5.96, 4.25 and 3.22 cm was 4.99, 4.66, 5.12, 4.21 and 3.23 cm, respectively. A strong correlation was found between right foot length and height (r=0.999, p<0.001) and between left foot length and height (r=0.996, p<0.001). 1st toe 2nd toe 3rd toe 4th toe 5th toe Total right foot 4.99 ± 0.23 4.68 ± 0.13 5.96 ± 0.56 4.25 ± 0.11 3.22 ± 0.11 left foot 4.99 ± 0.23 4.66 ± 0.14 5.12 ± 0.2 0.1 4.31 ± 0.14 Table 2: The mean length of the toes in the study population. However, there was no correlation between foot height and foot width (r=0.074, p=0.245). As shown in Table 3, an unfavorable association between height and length of the first (r=-0.180, p=0.004) and second (r=-0.155, p=0.014) toes on the right foot was indicated. In addition, a similar adverse correlation was found between height and length of the first toe on the left foot (r = -0.186, p = 0.003). Regarding the relationship between height and foot parameters in men and women (Table 4), a positive relationship between height and foot length was significant in both sexes, but a direct relationship between foot width and foot size was significant only in women, not in men. Regarding the relationship between the height and the length of the toes, this relationship between the height and the right and left first toes was found only in males, not in females. 1st toe 2nd toe 3rd toe 4th toe 5th toe Total right foot -0.18 -0.155 -0.048 -0.025 0.042 (0.508) -0.004 -0.014 -0.454 -0.698 left foot -0.186 0.022 (0.725) 0.001 ( 0.993) -0.0546 -0.046 0.003 – 0.464 – 0.39 Men Right foot – 0.229 – 0.144 – 0.126 0.039 (0.669) 0.007 (0.939) – 0.01 – 0.11 – 0.16 Left foot – 0.281 0.031 ( 0.729) - 0.143 - 0.082 - 0.035 - 0.001 - 6.6 - 0.001 Females Right Foot -0.13 -0.168 0.088 (0.327) -0.083 0.077 (0.396) -0.148 -0.062 -0.355 Table 3: Relationship between toe length and height by gender; Pearson correlation (Sig. [2-tailed]). Right foot length Left foot length Foot width Male 1.000 (0.000) 0.996 (0.000) 0.092 (0.309) Female 1.000 (0.000) 1.000 (0.000) 0.185 (0.039) Table 4: Relationship between toe length and height by gender; Pearson correlation (Sig. [2-tailed]). discussion Estimating anthropometric measurements can play a role in determining gender, identity, and many other things that are helpful in identifying the bodies found that are unknown. Importantly, these measurements should be made separately in each population, as racial and ethnic differences affect these measurements and reduce the possibility of generalization. Given that no similar studies have been conducted in Iran, and given the importance of the issue, in this study we estimated height from foot measurements in the Iranian population. Our experiments led to finding foot length as a strong predictor of height, but foot width was not valuable in predicting height. Also, regarding the relationship between toe size and length, only the first toe could only predict height in males, not in females. Several researchers have been able to find similar results in other populations, pointing to the importance of foot measurements in predicting height. A large study of Chinese children found a very high linear correlation between height and foot length with a correlation coefficient between 0.96 and 0.99 for both sexes [9]. In another study by Grivas et al. In school-age children, a significant correlation was found between right and left foot length and either height or weight, leading to the introduction of a fitting formula between these parameters as height (cm) = 34.113 + 3.716 x (right foot length ( cm)) led. +1,558 (if girl)+2,499x(age(years)) [2]. They similarly showed that foot length estimated an adolescent's stature and weight, particularly after adjusting for age and gender. Another study by Agnihotri et al. showed that right foot length could explain about 77% of height variation [10]. Krisha et al. The study found that the correlation between stature and all foot measurements was positive and statistically significant (p-value < 0.001) and that foot length measurements estimate stature with greater accuracy compared to foot width measurements [11]. In another study by Krishan [11], 7 anthropometric measurements were performed separately on the left and right foot of each person. The results indicated that there is significant (P<0.01) bilateral asymmetry at lengths T-1, T-2, and T-5. All 7 foot parameters selected for the study were positively correlated with stature. The maximum correlation coefficients resulted from the toe length measurements [12]. The study by Uhrová et al. showed significant gender differences in hand and foot dimensions and stature (p < 0.05). There was a positive and statistically significant correlation between stature and all measurements in both sexes (p<0.01). The highest correlation coefficient was found for foot length in both men (r=0.71) and women (r=0.63) [13]. An important strengthening of the current study is that most previous studies focused on a specific age variant, especially children, and therefore an association between height and foot measurements in adults has not previously been evaluated [14]. In this respect, our study could demonstrate a high reliability of foot parameters, especially foot length, for predicting height in all age subgroups. Our findings are very applicable to various forensic medical issues. In fact, sizing patients with severe accidents, burns, and in dismembered cases from foot measurements is so difficult that more available measurements are required. In fact, using foot length, foot width for women, and also first toe length for men can be very helpful in authentication. More importantly, considering a combination of these parameters can increase the accuracy of identification in forensic medicine and therefore comparing the use of each parameter alone or in combination with each other should be evaluated in further studies. It should also be borne in mind that the correlations obtained may differ across populations and ethnicities, with a focus on ethnically based analyzes of the association between height and foot parameters. According to previous studies, physical stature decreases with age. Ferniough showed that height reduction is an important phenomenon in populations. The reduction rate is also higher in women than in men [15]. In addition, the health status of the elderly population may affect this reduction. In another study by Bagga, he assessed height reduction in women aged 30-70 years, he also showed the reduction in women aged 60-69 years [16]. Although the results of previous studies on the exact age of height are controversial, the authors recommend paying attention to the age range in future studies to prevent the likely effect of age on height. Body morphological and size changes appear to be influenced by many internal and external factors, including the mechanical effects of use and wear and tear and physical stress throughout a person's life, different cultures and lifestyles, which should be considered in size assessment [16]. Conclusion In summary, by measuring foot length, foot width (in females) and length of the first toe (in males), estimating height may be possible, but this possibility has only been tested in our population and should be evaluated in additional populations in order to arrive at a globally accurate formula reach. references