Ladies - How many pounds for YOU to lose a pants size?

1679111215

Replies

  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,575 Member
    At least 10 pounds. I'm at a point now where I might be able to drop a size in 5 pounds though. Makes a bigger difference under 130.
  • amb3rj0y
    amb3rj0y Posts: 47 Member
    Well I am down 17 lbs and am still a size 18 :/ . On a more positive note they are getting more loose. usually when I wash/dry my pants they would feel tight when I put them back on. Now they are feeling more baggy :)
  • IILikeToMoveItMoveIt
    IILikeToMoveItMoveIt Posts: 1,172 Member
    Of the 53 lbs I lost I went from a 22 to a 16...
  • carlyp79
    carlyp79 Posts: 95 Member
    Several thousand, apparently.

    Agree with it seeming that you need to lose a significant amount to drop between higher sizes. I fit *some* 16' at the moment, some are too small still. I have lost about 6kg.
    At my optimum weight (in living memory anyway) I am a 12-14 due to being 5'10" and amazonian. So it's strange to think I'm only a couple of sizes from optimal but still about 15-17kg away from fitting them.
  • Stacescotty
    Stacescotty Posts: 29 Member
    I've lost 54lbs and only lost 2-3 (depending on the brand) sizes. :( I'm 5'10"
  • Bshmerlie
    Bshmerlie Posts: 1,026 Member
    At 254 I was wearing a size 22. At 230 I was a size 20 At 215 I was a size 18. At 197 I am wearing a size 16. In tops I went from a 3x to an XL.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    5'9". I wore a size 22/20 at 270 lbs. Today I'm 18/16 and 215. So 2 dress sizes in 55 lbs. Kinda matches up with what I'm seeing a lot of folks here.

    As has been pointed out, small sizes are spaced together a lot closer. Also, they're based on circumference, but they're really measuring cross-sectional area. So
    Area = π* (radius)²
    Circumference = 2 * π * radius

    Using US Standard size clothing,
    Size 4
    Circumference = 36.375 inches
    Radius = 5.792 inches
    Area = 105.338 inches²

    Size 6
    Circumference = 37.5 inches
    Radius = 5.971 inches
    Area = 111.963 inches²

    So there's been a change in the area of 6.625 inches²


    Now looking at the sizes 18 and 20 (top of the ASTM D5585 11e1, 2011)
    Size 18
    Circumference = 46 inches
    Radius = 7.325 inches
    Area = 168.471 inches²

    Size 20
    Circumference = 48 inches
    Radius = 7.643 inches
    Area = 183.439 inches²

    Between Size 18 and 20 there is a change of 14.968 inches²

    Now go up to the upper end of Lane Bryant's catalogue and look at the difference in a 30 and a 32:

    Size 30
    Circumference = 58 inches
    Radius = 9.236 inches
    Area = 267.834 inches²

    Size 32
    Circumference = 60 inches
    Radius = 9.554 inches
    Area = 286.624 inches²

    Between Size 18 and 20 there is a change of 18.790 inches²

    Obviously in a 3 dimensional human being, that change in internal area on a single cross-section, multiplied by all the cross-sections in a body, would mean you would have to lose a LOT more weight to effect a size reduction, because dress sizes are not equal in volume changes. At all.
  • Fujiberry
    Fujiberry Posts: 400 Member
    2-5 lbs, usually.
  • rats2010
    rats2010 Posts: 79 Member
    I'm 5'8 and went from 341 to 326, dropped 2 scrub pant sizes and 1 jeans pant size. I hold most of my weight in my gut and thighs.
  • cupcakesplz
    cupcakesplz Posts: 237 Member
    Hi
    I was a size 18 Australia
    I have lost 22 lbs and now a size 16
    I can fit into a 14 but I couldn't leave the house in them . To be honest I could have been more of a size 20 since all of my 18's were stretched
  • Liftin4food
    Liftin4food Posts: 175 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    5'9". I wore a size 22/20 at 270 lbs. Today I'm 18/16 and 215. So 2 dress sizes in 55 lbs. Kinda matches up with what I'm seeing a lot of folks here.

    As has been pointed out, small sizes are spaced together a lot closer. Also, they're based on circumference, but they're really measuring cross-sectional area. So
    Area = π* (radius)²
    Circumference = 2 * π * radius

    Using US Standard size clothing,
    Size 4
    Circumference = 36.375 inches
    Radius = 5.792 inches
    Area = 105.338 inches²

    Size 6
    Circumference = 37.5 inches
    Radius = 5.971 inches
    Area = 111.963 inches²

    So there's been a change in the area of 6.625 inches²


    Now looking at the sizes 18 and 20 (top of the ASTM D5585 11e1, 2011)
    Size 18
    Circumference = 46 inches
    Radius = 7.325 inches
    Area = 168.471 inches²

    Size 20
    Circumference = 48 inches
    Radius = 7.643 inches
    Area = 183.439 inches²

    Between Size 18 and 20 there is a change of 14.968 inches²

    Now go up to the upper end of Lane Bryant's catalogue and look at the difference in a 30 and a 32:

    Size 30
    Circumference = 58 inches
    Radius = 9.236 inches
    Area = 267.834 inches²

    Size 32
    Circumference = 60 inches
    Radius = 9.554 inches
    Area = 286.624 inches²

    Between Size 18 and 20 there is a change of 18.790 inches²

    Obviously in a 3 dimensional human being, that change in internal area on a single cross-section, multiplied by all the cross-sections in a body, would mean you would have to lose a LOT more weight to effect a size reduction, because dress sizes are not equal in volume changes. At all.

    That's really interesting - I wonder if it works like that here in the uk. I'm off to compare clothes sizes here - and am hoping that I'm much closer to my goal size than I thought!
  • WendyPalmer4
    WendyPalmer4 Posts: 1 Member
    I'm 5'8 and lost 18 1/2 pounds and nothing fits better yet....it upsets me greatly
  • atlrox2285
    atlrox2285 Posts: 13 Member
    I dropped 2 sizes after 15 pounds. Started lifting weights seriously and dropped five pounds and another pants size. Squats make you drop sizes faster!!
  • Asher_Ethan
    Asher_Ethan Posts: 2,430 Member
    I'm 5'9" and I was a 9/10 at 180 and I'm only now a 7/8 at 150. My body is weird.
  • jdleanna
    jdleanna Posts: 141 Member
    I lost 15 pounds, no change to size. Lost another 1.5 pounds and suddenly down two sizes. Which makes me think it may be random. :-)
  • ohmyllama
    ohmyllama Posts: 161 Member
    I lost 22lbs (168 currently, at 4'11) and very little change in size. Maybe one size or a half of a size. I'm still wearing my 13s around, but my XL stretchy pants seem to be a lot looser. For some reason, my jeans seem to fit the same.
  • scolaris
    scolaris Posts: 2,145 Member
    Today! I'm wearing 32 Hudson skinnies which would be a 12/14 I think and they are almost falling down around my knees when I walk. No need to unbutton or unzip! And belts aren't working great because I can't seem to cinch them tight enough. MFP says I've lost 10.5 but it's probably closer to 15 because I started with a janky scale giving me inconsistent weights. I think it changes about every 15 or so for me...
  • Tezah
    Tezah Posts: 6 Member
    Im at 200 right now up 10lbs from vacation smh and when I was 189 I was the same size. My jeans fit almost the same and I'm pretty sure that extra 10lbs went to my boobs. it really depends because I was 185 before pregnancy and was in a tight size 10 but my 189 recently was still a size 14. Im only 5' 3'' so I'm pretty overweight but losing weight this time around not changing my pants size fast enough for me :-(
  • 1961dublin
    1961dublin Posts: 124 Member
    About 6kgs or 12 lbs for every clothes size down. I went from around 78 to 60 kgs, and size 16 to 10 UK sizes.
  • LadyLallybroch
    LadyLallybroch Posts: 36 Member
    I'm 5'8", about 157 pounds now. I've lost 7 pounds, and gone down a size already - or at least clothes I couldn't wear before I can wear now and clothes I could wear before are now quite loose. My weight is pretty balanced between hips and tummy area.