Your goal is adding muscle mass. I can help with that.

Options
2

Replies

  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,442 Member
    Options
    aeloine wrote: »
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    I'll take about 15 pounds of muscle weight, please. Send it on over.

    Can I trade with the OP? I'll trade 15lb of fat for 15lb of muscle. Thanks cheers.

    That's what I meant! Can I change my order, please?

    :lol:

    All sales are final.

    *KITTEN!!!*
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Penthesilea514 wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    US or UK 14?

    US in my case, don't know about OP- but a good point, a UK 14 would be what, about a US 10? And I can't speak to vanity sizing in the UK (if it exists).

    oh it does exist!

    for me, i don't see a US 14 - which is a uk 18 as particularly small given her weight so i am not really sure what OPs getting at?

    As I am also 222lb and a UK size 18 I can confirm that it is a fat size. :+1:

    Can confirm. That was my start weight. Still pretty sure I have a reasonable amount of muscle mass now I'm getting closer to goal (10 pounds from healthy BMI, size US8/UK12, sometimes smaller because yes, vanity sizing) but at 222lbs I was certifiably, undeniably, fat. I'm no physique model now at 160lbs either.
  • Lois_1989
    Lois_1989 Posts: 6,409 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Lois_1989 wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Penthesilea514 wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    US or UK 14?

    US in my case, don't know about OP- but a good point, a UK 14 would be what, about a US 10? And I can't speak to vanity sizing in the UK (if it exists).

    oh it does exist!

    for me, i don't see a US 14 - which is a uk 18 as particularly small given her weight so i am not really sure what OPs getting at?

    As I am also 222lb and a UK size 18 I can confirm that it is a fat size. :+1:

    Can confirm. That was my start weight. Still pretty sure I have a reasonable amount of muscle mass now I'm getting closer to goal (10 pounds from healthy BMI, size US8/UK12, sometimes smaller because yes, vanity sizing) but at 222lbs I was certifiably, undeniably, fat. I'm no physique model now at 160lbs either.

    I dream of being you. <3
  • kristen8000
    kristen8000 Posts: 747 Member
    Options
    I don't understand what the OP is getting at?

    And for vanity sizing, who cares what that size means? Today, I can go in any store, find a Size 6 (US) pant/short/capri and it fits. What's so vanity in that? I do realize that if I was 39 years old, 5'11 and 153lbs in 1972 I wouldn't be a size 6 (more than likely a 10 or 12), but TODAY, I'm a 6. I'm not sure why people get so BENT out of shape. It's not like I'm going to have clothes from 1972 and still try and wear them. Go to store, find clothes that fit, wear the clothes that fit. Whalaa.

    Can someone at least explain where I'm going wrong on the vanity sizing thing? While we try and figure out if the OP is trying to sell her muscle or just her services.
  • Lois_1989
    Lois_1989 Posts: 6,409 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    I think it is more of a case that "Vanity Sizing" is bigger clothes labelled up as a smaller size. So as discussed I'm a size 18, but if I found that I can [finally] fit into a size 16 or maybe even a 14 I would suddenly feel better because I can fit into a smaller size. But I haven't, same physical size, labelled differently
  • laur357
    laur357 Posts: 896 Member
    Options
    Is this more of a bartering situation? You're offering help with the muscle building aspect if someone helps you with the weight loss aspect?
  • kristen8000
    kristen8000 Posts: 747 Member
    Options
    Labelled differently maybe 30-40 years ago. But if you are losing weight over 1-2 years you should, hypothetically still be in the range of "today".

    IDK. I guess I'll really never get it. I mean unless people carry size patterns in their purse for what a certian size really is and compare it with clothes. Wouldn't that be a sight?

    Ok. Off Soap Box.

    Now, to wait until the OP comes back and explains what she means.
  • Penthesilea514
    Penthesilea514 Posts: 1,189 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    kristen8000 wrote: »
    Labelled differently maybe 30-40 years ago. But if you are losing weight over 1-2 years you should, hypothetically still be in the range of "today".

    IDK. I guess I'll really never get it. I mean unless people carry size patterns in their purse for what a certian size really is and compare it with clothes. Wouldn't that be a sight?

    Ok. Off Soap Box.

    Now, to wait until the OP comes back and explains what she means.

    I was just sharing my experiences with vanity sizing in my own lifetime (sorry, wasn't alive in 1972, but over 15 years ago like I mentioned in my post). I honestly don't care what size I am these days, it was more that I was wondering about the OP using her clothing size to imply...something, and I felt like I wanted to share that I just don't think sizes are reliable to quantify how "skinny" or "fat" someone is- regardless of level of fitness, given how changeable and not industry standard they are for females.

    But I agree with your principal issue, that the number is largely irrelevant no matter what it meant 5, 10, 15 years ago. But all we have to go on for the OP is the listed size.
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    Options
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Vanity sizing is different between stores and between labels. It's demoralizing being a size 10 in one brand and a size 14 in another.

    But really, I'm glad that you're happy with current vanity sizing. It must be working out fine for you. I, on the other hand, will continue to try on dozens of pairs of jeans from different decades across three sizes at Goodwill and hope that one of them works for me this time.

    I know that feeling well! I recently needed a pair of jeans that actually fit rather than being gathered up with a belt that's also too big, and tried several pairs in my local thrift store. The ones I bought are a size 12 that fits perfectly, but I tried a 16 in another brand that I couldn't get over my hips. Go figure.
  • Penthesilea514
    Penthesilea514 Posts: 1,189 Member
    Options
    @diannethegeek - you make a good point, I rarely shopped at thrift stores before because of the limited selection in my larger sizes, but now that I am starting to find more in my size, this will become even more frustrating.
  • kristen8000
    kristen8000 Posts: 747 Member
    Options
    I think the OP was stating that at 222lbs she should be wearing a bigger size than a 14. And yes, it may have something to do with "vanity" sizing. But at 193lbs and 5'11 I wore a 16. So, she's obviously "dense".

    But I agree, going by clothing sizing is a bit arbitary. And no, I rarely shop in thrift stores. Having a 37" inseam, finding pants at thrift stores was a pointless endeavor. Heck, even stores make me buy things online most of the time. Most "longs" or "talls" sold in stores are too short for me.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    You see, the thing with vanity sizing is it's psychologically normalising being overweight. There's a thing in most peoples psyche that will see a certain as "slim". Usually around 8/10UK 6/8US. Relabelling things a couple sizes up and suddenly those aren't actually healthy sizes at all when we look at average body fat and weight for those.

    So it's not just about shopping. Retailers are deliberately making us erroneously feel good about our weight and size.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    shaunshaikh wrote: »
    I think she was trying to say she'd gladly give her muscle to those trying to gain muscle because she thinks she has more than the average person?

    Oh, yeah. I guess that makes sense.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    You see, the thing with vanity sizing is it's psychologically normalising being overweight. There's a thing in most peoples psyche that will see a certain as "slim". Usually around 8/10UK 6/8US. Relabelling things a couple sizes up and suddenly those aren't actually healthy sizes at all when we look at average body fat and weight for those.

    So it's not just about shopping. Retailers are deliberately making us erroneously feel good about our weight and size.

    Yep, and it's a complete pain in the butt. I find the discrepancies between what is considered S, M, L etc to be the worst, even within a single store and brand. I have stuff ranging from XS to M. The idea that I'm an XS is ridiculous. I'm 5'6" and smack bang in the middle of healthy BMI. That's medium, or at least it should be.

    TL;DR - no, I am not flattered by being able to buy XS clothing, it's stupid.

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    I used to think that vanity sizing was normalizing being overweight and whatnot, but a wonderfully insightful post by @tomteboda changed my mind on the issue.

    The population has changed size, and it's not about flattery or any moral commentary, it's about meeting the needs of consumers.

    I do hope she comes into this thread and clarifies the issue, because I am making a mess of it. Her points are salient and informative on the issue, and I am not doing them service.
  • RaeBeeBaby
    RaeBeeBaby Posts: 4,245 Member
    Options
    SueSueDio wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Vanity sizing is different between stores and between labels. It's demoralizing being a size 10 in one brand and a size 14 in another.

    But really, I'm glad that you're happy with current vanity sizing. It must be working out fine for you. I, on the other hand, will continue to try on dozens of pairs of jeans from different decades across three sizes at Goodwill and hope that one of them works for me this time.

    I know that feeling well! I recently needed a pair of jeans that actually fit rather than being gathered up with a belt that's also too big, and tried several pairs in my local thrift store. The ones I bought are a size 12 that fits perfectly, but I tried a 16 in another brand that I couldn't get over my hips. Go figure.

    I run into this all the time! The whole sizing thing is definitely not universal even if you factor in vanity sizing. Some labels put a smaller size on a bigger piece of clothing, but with jeans it's often the opposite. Especially if the jeans are a really popular brand with a hefty price tag. It can be demoralizing. It's as if they are saying you must be rich and skinny to wear these or get lost.

    A few years back I walked into a high end jeans store (starts with D, rhymes with easel) and the size 0 sales clerk flat out told me they didn't carry my size before I even started looking around. At the time I was probably a US 14. I slunk out the door and never went back. So it's not surprising that people have issues around sizes of clothing. Our culture in the US clearly promotes it.

    As much as I hate to be a size-ist, I do get a little thrill when a smaller size fits me. Conditioning like Pavlov's dogs.
  • watts6151
    watts6151 Posts: 890 Member
    Options
    I'm currently 220lb would love
    Another 10lb of muscle without
    It taking forever

Categories