Statistic,Value,Unit,Geography,Segment,Basis,Period,Source,Evidence tier,Series ID or note,Primary source URL,Note
Foot scans in the study,"1,200,847",scans,"North America, Europe, Asia",All,"Volumental 3D scans of customers at 712 stores, barefoot, both feet scanned",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,"Retail customers, not a random sample of the population."
Scans from North America,"1,105,508",scans,North America,All,"Volumental 3D scans of customers at 712 stores, barefoot, both feet scanned",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Canada and the USA.
Scans from Europe,"74,534",scans,Europe,All,"Volumental 3D scans of customers at 712 stores, barefoot, both feet scanned",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,22 countries.
Scans from Asia,"20,805",scans,Asia,All,"Volumental 3D scans of customers at 712 stores, barefoot, both feet scanned",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,"China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand."
Scans from men,"547,969",scans,"North America, Europe, Asia",Men,"Volumental 3D scans of customers at 712 stores, barefoot, both feet scanned",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,
Scans from women,"652,878",scans,"North America, Europe, Asia",Women,"Volumental 3D scans of customers at 712 stores, barefoot, both feet scanned",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,
Share of scans from Asia,1.7,percent,Asia,All,"20,805 divided by 1,200,847",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,UrbanStyle calculation.
Share of scans from North America,92,percent,North America,All,"1,105,508 divided by 1,200,847",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,UrbanStyle calculation.
"Most frequent foot-length class, men",270,millimetres,North America,Men,"Jurca scans, 5 mm length classes; not a mean",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,"Foot length, not shoe size."
"Most frequent foot-length class, women",245,millimetres,North America,Women,"Jurca scans, 5 mm length classes; not a mean",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,"Foot length, not shoe size."
"Most frequent foot-length class, men",270,millimetres,Europe,Men,"Jurca scans, 5 mm length classes; not a mean",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Similar to North America.
"Most frequent foot-length class, women",245,millimetres,Europe,Women,"Jurca scans, 5 mm length classes; not a mean",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Similar to North America.
"Most frequent foot-length class, men",255,millimetres,Asia,Men,"Jurca scans, 5 mm length classes; not a mean",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Asian distribution shifted to shorter lengths.
"Most frequent foot-length class, women",235,millimetres,Asia,Women,"Jurca scans, 5 mm length classes; not a mean",Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Asian distribution shifted to shorter lengths.
"Length classes the study analysed, men",220 to 300,millimetres,"North America, Europe, Asia",Men,Jurca scans,Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Scans outside the range were excluded.
"Length classes the study analysed, women",210 to 280,millimetres,"North America, Europe, Asia",Women,Jurca scans,Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Scans outside the range were excluded.
"Mean foot width, men in the 270 mm length class",102.0,millimetres,North America,Men,Jurca scans; 5th to 95th percentile 94.4 to 110.2 mm,Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,"The paper reports width by length class, not an overall mean."
Width in Asian scans against North America and Europe,Wider,direction,Asia,Men and women,Jurca scans; most length classes (not men at 295 and 300 mm),Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,The paper gives no single overall figure.
Instep height in European scans against North America,Higher,direction,Europe,Men,Jurca scans; all male length classes,Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,
Men against women: width and instep height,Men higher,direction,"North America, Europe, Asia",Men and women,Jurca scans; length classes from about 245 to 280 mm,Nov 2017 to Aug 2018,"Jurca et al., 2019",A,DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-55432-z,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6914786/,Heel width differences were described as practically negligible.
"Median foot length, men",271.0,millimetres,United States (military),Men,US Army survey summary table (inches converted to mm); 10.67 in,2010 to 2012,US Army survey (via NC State table),D,Table row 30 and 31 (inches),https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2026/02/01-Anthropometry-Summary-Tables.pdf,"Military population, read through a secondary table."
"Median foot length, women",243.6,millimetres,United States (military),Women,US Army survey summary table (inches converted to mm); 9.59 in,2010 to 2012,US Army survey (via NC State table),D,Table row 30 and 31 (inches),https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2026/02/01-Anthropometry-Summary-Tables.pdf,"Military population, read through a secondary table."
"Foot length, 5th to 95th percentile, men",250 to 293,millimetres,United States (military),Men,US Army survey summary table (inches converted to mm); 9.84 to 11.54 in,2010 to 2012,US Army survey (via NC State table),D,Table row 30 and 31 (inches),https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2026/02/01-Anthropometry-Summary-Tables.pdf,Standard deviation 13.2 mm.
"Foot length, 5th to 95th percentile, women",226 to 268,millimetres,United States (military),Women,US Army survey summary table (inches converted to mm); 8.90 to 10.55 in,2010 to 2012,US Army survey (via NC State table),D,Table row 30 and 31 (inches),https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2026/02/01-Anthropometry-Summary-Tables.pdf,Standard deviation 12.4 mm.
"Median foot breadth, men",102.1,millimetres,United States (military),Men,US Army survey summary table (inches converted to mm); 4.02 in,2010 to 2012,US Army survey (via NC State table),D,Table row 30 and 31 (inches),https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2026/02/01-Anthropometry-Summary-Tables.pdf,5th to 95th percentile 94 to 111 mm.
"Median foot breadth, women",93.0,millimetres,United States (military),Women,US Army survey summary table (inches converted to mm); 3.66 in,2010 to 2012,US Army survey (via NC State table),D,Table row 30 and 31 (inches),https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2026/02/01-Anthropometry-Summary-Tables.pdf,5th to 95th percentile 85 to 101 mm.
"Median foot length, men minus women",27.4,millimetres,United States (military),Men and women,Difference of the two medians above,2010 to 2012,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,UrbanStyle calculation.
"Median foot breadth, men minus women",9.1,millimetres,United States (military),Men and women,Difference of the two medians above,2010 to 2012,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,UrbanStyle calculation.
Overlap between women's 95th and men's 5th percentile foot length,18,millimetres,United States (military),Men and women,"10.55 inches minus 9.84 inches, converted",2010 to 2012,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,The longest 5% of women's feet are longer than the shortest 5% of men's.
"Mean foot length, men",270.03,millimetres,Iran,Men,"Right foot, 580 university students aged 18 to 30 in Urmia; SD 15.17 mm",2018 study,"Hajaghazadeh et al., 2018",A,"Health Scope 7(3), e14063",https://brieflands.com/journals/healthscope/articles/14063,"One city, young adults."
"Mean foot length, women",234.35,millimetres,Iran,Women,"Right foot, 580 university students aged 18 to 30 in Urmia; SD 11.20 mm",2018 study,"Hajaghazadeh et al., 2018",A,"Health Scope 7(3), e14063",https://brieflands.com/journals/healthscope/articles/14063,"One city, young adults."
"Mean foot width, men",100.44,millimetres,Iran,Men,"Right foot, 580 university students aged 18 to 30 in Urmia; SD 11.57 mm",2018 study,"Hajaghazadeh et al., 2018",A,"Health Scope 7(3), e14063",https://brieflands.com/journals/healthscope/articles/14063,
"Mean foot width, women",89.17,millimetres,Iran,Women,"Right foot, 580 university students aged 18 to 30 in Urmia; SD 5.92 mm",2018 study,"Hajaghazadeh et al., 2018",A,"Health Scope 7(3), e14063",https://brieflands.com/journals/healthscope/articles/14063,
"Mean foot length, men minus women",35.7,millimetres,Iran,Men and women,Difference of the two means above,2018 study,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,UrbanStyle calculation.
"Mean foot width, men minus women",11.3,millimetres,Iran,Men and women,Difference of the two means above,2018 study,UrbanStyle calculation,E,n/a,https://urbanstylefootwear.com/foot-size-statistics/#usf-method,UrbanStyle calculation.
"Foot width, men against women, foot length 235 mm",91.4 against 87.1,millimetres,China,Men and women,Hong et al.; right foot; foot length class within 2 mm of the stated length,2011 study,"Hong et al., 2011",A,DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,Difference 4.3 mm as published (the rounded means can differ by 0.1); statistically significant.
"Foot width, men against women, foot length 240 mm",92.5 against 88.0,millimetres,China,Men and women,Hong et al.; right foot; foot length class within 2 mm of the stated length,2011 study,"Hong et al., 2011",A,DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,Difference 4.4 mm as published (the rounded means can differ by 0.1); statistically significant.
"Foot width, men against women, foot length 245 mm",93.3 against 89.0,millimetres,China,Men and women,Hong et al.; right foot; foot length class within 2 mm of the stated length,2011 study,"Hong et al., 2011",A,DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,Difference 4.3 mm as published (the rounded means can differ by 0.1); statistically significant.
"Foot width, men against women, foot length 250 mm",94.1 against 92.2,millimetres,China,Men and women,Hong et al.; right foot; foot length class within 2 mm of the stated length,2011 study,"Hong et al., 2011",A,DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,Difference 1.9 mm as published (the rounded means can differ by 0.1); not statistically significant.
Women's feet narrower than men's at the same foot length,4.3,millimetres,China,Women,"Typical difference at foot lengths of 235, 240 and 245 mm",2011 study,"Hong et al., 2011",A,DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,Averaged difference 0.3 to 0.4 percent of foot length per the authors.
Participants in the Chinese foot-shape study,"2,321",people,China,Men and women,"1,236 men and 1,085 women aged 18 to 30",2011 study,"Hong et al., 2011",A,DOI 10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.569567,
People scanned in the Indian foot survey,"101,880",people,India,All,"CSIR-CLRI, 3D scanners, 79 locations in five zones",Dec 2021 to Mar 2022,CSIR-CLRI survey (via Business Today),D,n/a,https://businesstoday.in/india/story/indians-to-have-new-shoe-sizing-system-as-bha-set-to-replace-euukus-sizes-426600-2024-04-23,Reported by Business Today; I did not open the survey itself.
"Age at which average foot size peaks, women",about 11,years,India,Women,CSIR-CLRI survey as reported,Dec 2021 to Mar 2022,CSIR-CLRI survey (via Business Today),D,n/a,https://businesstoday.in/india/story/indians-to-have-new-shoe-sizing-system-as-bha-set-to-replace-euukus-sizes-426600-2024-04-23,The report gives no lengths or widths.
"Age at which average foot size peaks, men",15 or 16,years,India,Men,CSIR-CLRI survey as reported,Dec 2021 to Mar 2022,CSIR-CLRI survey (via Business Today),D,n/a,https://businesstoday.in/india/story/indians-to-have-new-shoe-sizing-system-as-bha-set-to-replace-euukus-sizes-426600-2024-04-23,The report gives no lengths or widths.
Indian feet against Western feet,Wider,direction,India,All,CSIR-CLRI survey as reported,Dec 2021 to Mar 2022,CSIR-CLRI survey (via Business Today),D,n/a,https://businesstoday.in/india/story/indians-to-have-new-shoe-sizing-system-as-bha-set-to-replace-euukus-sizes-426600-2024-04-23,No figures given.
Sizes in the proposed Indian system (Bha),8,sizes,India,All ages,Proposal as reported in April 2024; sizes I to VIII,Apr 2024,CSIR-CLRI survey (via Business Today),D,n/a,https://businesstoday.in/india/story/indians-to-have-new-shoe-sizing-system-as-bha-set-to-replace-euukus-sizes-426600-2024-04-23,I did not find a notified standard.
Adults in the Korean foot survey data,"4,045",people,South Korea,Men and women aged 20 to 59,"8th Size Korea Anthropometric Survey, as cited",2020 to 2023,"Kim, 2026 (via citation page)",D,ISSN 0928-7329,https://www.citedrive.com/en/discovery/anthropometric-classification-of-foot-morphology-in-korean-adults-using-k-means-cluster-analysis/,The citation page gives no means. Four foot-shape clusters per sex.
People whose feet differ in length by more than 4 mm,up to 19,percent,United Kingdom,All,SATRA Bulletin; sample not stated,2018,"SATRA Bulletin, 2018",C,n/a,https://satra.com/bulletin/article.php?id=2115,"Worded as ""as many as 19 per cent""."
People whose feet differ in length by more than 4 mm,at least 24,percent,China,All,SATRA Bulletin; sample not stated,2018,"SATRA Bulletin, 2018",C,n/a,https://satra.com/bulletin/article.php?id=2115,"Worded as ""no less than 24 per cent""."
"People with identical foot length on both feet, to 0.1 mm",about 1,percent,Global,All,SATRA Bulletin; sample not stated,2018,"SATRA Bulletin, 2018",C,n/a,https://satra.com/bulletin/article.php?id=2115,
Women in the pregnancy foot study,49,women,United States,Women,Measured in the first trimester and at 19 weeks after birth,2013 study,"Segal et al., 2013",A,DOI 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31827443a9,https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e31827443a9,Arch height and rigidity fell and foot length rose; the abstract gives no figures.
Claimed rise in average British shoe size since 1970,"men 8 to 10, women 4 to 6",UK sizes,United Kingdom,Men and women,"College of Podiatry poll of 2,000 adults as reported; no study named",Undated,Buckbootz news page,D,n/a,https://www.buckbootz.com/news/british-feet-get-two-sizes-bigger-in-40-years,"I could not trace a measured source, so I do not use the claim."