Are there better anatomical predictors of penis size than shoe or hand size?
Executive summary
Big-feet and big-hands are myths: multiple reviews and clinical studies find shoe and hand size have little or no meaningful correlation with erect penis length, while measures like stretched penile length, anogenital distance, digit ratios and testicular size show stronger, sometimes independent, associations (see especially Kaya et al. and the PMC anogenital/nose studies) [1] [2] [3].
1. The persistent myth: feet and hands as shortcuts
Popular belief that shoe or hand size predicts penis length is widespread, but authoritative reviews and mainstream health outlets report negligible correlations; WorldPopulationReview and Hims both state that shoe size and hand size do not meaningfully predict penis length, and the large 2015 meta‑analysis commonly cited gives no support for simple anthropometric shortcuts [4] [5] [1].
2. What researchers treat as the “gold standard” for measurement
Clinical research treats bone‑pressed erect length (BPEL) and stretched penile length (SPL) as the most reliable metrics; systematic reviews pool studies using those methods to create population averages (about 13.1 cm erect in several meta‑analyses) and stress that measurement technique matters greatly when comparing datasets [6] [7] [1].
3. Better anatomical predictors identified in multivariable studies
Recent multivariate work finds some body parts actually have statistically significant relationships with penile measures. Kaya et al. reported anogenital distance (AGD) was the strongest independent predictor of stretched penile length (β = 0.618, p < 0.001), and fourth‑digit length (ring finger) also showed an independent association (β = 0.475, p = 0.042) [2]. A separate clinical study found nose size and BMI were significant predictors of SPL in multivariable models, while testicular size and body weight predicted penile circumference [3].
4. Effect sizes matter: significant ≠ useful as a ruler
Even where correlations exist, they are often modest. Reviews and primary studies report weak but statistically significant positive correlations between height, arm span or certain digit lengths and penile length; those associations are real in statistical models but explain only a small portion of individual variation, so they are poor predictors for any given man [2] [8].
5. Biological reasoning: why some measures correlate
Researchers link AGD and digit ratios to prenatal androgen exposure — developmental processes that also influence genital growth — which explains why AGD and some finger‑length ratios correlate with penile measurements. Testicular size and testosterone levels relate to adult androgen status and therefore can affect girth in particular [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention causal mechanisms beyond these hormonal and developmental links.
6. Clinical utility versus pop culture appetite
Clinicians use SPL, AGD and direct measurement because they matter for diagnosis (e.g., micropenis) and surgical planning; by contrast, cultural interest in shoe/hand heuristics drives online lists and headlines but lacks clinical backing [7] [5]. The medical literature emphasizes standardized measurement technique as more important than surrogate anthropometrics [7] [6].
7. What the largest reviews say about population averages
Meta‑analyses show average erect length around 13.1 cm (≈5.16 inches) and reveal regional variability; they also underline heterogeneity in methods and recommend adjusting expectations for geography and methodology when interpreting rankings or individual claims [9] [6].
8. Practical takeaway for someone curious about predictors
If you want a medically meaningful number, have SPL or BPEL measured by a professional — that is the standard [7]. For non‑clinical curiosity, know that AGD and some digit ratios show the strongest anthropometric links reported so far, while shoe and hand size are poor proxies [2] [3] [5].
Limitations and caveats: studies vary in sample size, measurement technique and covariate control; some popular web reports and commercial sites amplify weak findings or present aggregated country rankings that mix methodologies — readers should prioritize peer‑reviewed clinical studies and systematic reviews over sensational lists [10] [9] [8].