Why is (US) size 10 Medium??
Replies
-
Sizes vary by manufacturer. I'm a 4 in some 6 in others and I have (okay seriously I love them 8 for my bloaty days).0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Sizing confuses the ever-living daylights out of me. I'm a medium and a size 6 or 8 depending on the brand. I'm short and still overweight for my height.
@PeachyCarol I know that I'm the same weight as you +/- 2lbs, the same age and 2 inches shorter, and I wear a 12/14 or a medium/large in pretty much every brand with the better brands trending smaller. I've bought clothes mail-order as well as in-store, and clothing made for the American market trends a size larger than than garments stitched for the Canadian market.
As for vintage, it also trends smaller but not quite as drastically as some articles on vanity sizing would suggest. I have a vintage ladies suit that I dug out of the back of my closet. It's a mid-80s medium top and large skirt. They both fit but the skirt is still on the tight side despite being a size larger than the top. I'd peg them both at a modern size 10/12. Old-school patterns were cut very narrow but it was presumed in those days that women canny enough to stitch their own clothes would record their measurements and alter the pattern accordingly.
0 -
Because people come in a lot of sizes and that range is sort of the middle! It's not a conspiracy! I'm 5'6" and even obese I wear 10s 12s and a few 14s... Tops are mediums and larges. At the top of my goal weight I'll be in 6s and 8s. If I hit the 120s I will be 2s and 4s. Just my very narrow bone structure. Diet and body composition only changes so much.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Sizing confuses the ever-living daylights out of me. I'm a medium and a size 6 or 8 depending on the brand. I'm short and still overweight for my height.
@PeachyCarol I know that I'm the same weight as you +/- 2lbs, the same age and 2 inches shorter, and I wear a 12/14 or a medium/large in pretty much every brand with the better brands trending smaller. I've bought clothes mail-order as well as in-store, and clothing made for the American market trends a size larger than than garments stitched for the Canadian market.
As for vintage, it also trends smaller but not quite as drastically as some articles on vanity sizing would suggest. I have a vintage ladies suit that I dug out of the back of my closet. It's a mid-80s medium top and large skirt. They both fit but the skirt is still on the tight side despite being a size larger than the top. I'd peg them both at a modern size 10/12. Old-school patterns were cut very narrow but it was presumed in those days that women canny enough to stitch their own clothes would record their measurements and alter the pattern accordingly.
You're only an inch shorter than me. I've shrunk. I'm only 5'1". I wear a small or a medium with better brands being a medium. That's interesting about clothes for Canada.
An interesting insight into TRULY vintage sizing: Back in the '80's, my Nan gave me a size 12 dress from the '50's. I was a size 12 at the time. That sucker was TIGHT up top.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
You're only an inch shorter than me. I've shrunk. I'm only 5'1". I wear a small or a medium with better brands being a medium. That's interesting about clothes for Canada.
An interesting insight into TRULY vintage sizing: Back in the '80's, my Nan gave me a size 12 dress from the '50's. I was a size 12 at the time. That sucker was TIGHT up top.
It's so true about body composition. I cannot underscore enough to people how much difference height makes. Have you tried browsing the kid's sections yet? There's some great deals there for petite basics.
0 -
Heck, I've ordered the same garment same size at the same time in two different colors and they have fit differently. I think clothing manufacturers just have an evil sense of humor
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
You're only an inch shorter than me. I've shrunk. I'm only 5'1". I wear a small or a medium with better brands being a medium. That's interesting about clothes for Canada.
An interesting insight into TRULY vintage sizing: Back in the '80's, my Nan gave me a size 12 dress from the '50's. I was a size 12 at the time. That sucker was TIGHT up top.
It's so true about body composition. I cannot underscore enough to people how much difference height makes. Have you tried browsing the kid's sections yet? There's some great deals there for petite basics.
I'm 5ft and 120-125lbs and I wear anywhere from a 0 to a 4. When I was in college I ran and lifted a lot and was 112lbs. A children's size 12 fit me perfectly. My 8 year old wears a 10-12! Sizes are so funky.
0 -
Heck, I've ordered the same garment same size at the same time in two different colors and they have fit differently. I think clothing manufacturers just have an evil sense of humor
I have that issue with my running shoes?!
Even IF manufacturers tried to make sizing more consistent, we'd still be different sizes based on the items. Despite having large hips/butt, I wear 1 to 2 sizes smaller on the bottom than on top (I have a large chest and broad shoulders). Dress sizes are different for me too because they need to fit my chest. So for pants, I wear an 8 or 10. For shirts, I'd wear a large or a 12. Dresses are a 12, or sometimes a 14. Skirts, size can vary based on pencil skirt vs. a-line, etc. So, even if sizing were more consistent, we'd have a bunch of different sizes based on the item itself.
0 -
I am 5"3 about 135 and I have an average BMI and am not overweight, just have a big booty and wide hips! I've worn a 8 since I was like 16 (I'm 26 now)0
-
Yes, I am thin at 8/10. That is the smallest size that I will ever be able to get into. I really can't wear tops in that size because I have large breasts. The same with dresses--I will always have to buy a larger size and tailor down because the girls are not going anywhere.
I am nearly 6' tall with a large frame size.
I really see the OP as a ridiculous humblebrag. Can you really not see that there are fit people around who are not petite?0 -
I am weirdo when it comes to size, i am clearly chubby..and I think just Heavy, BUT I can wear a 12 comfortably to the point of pretty loose, but 10s aren't comfy enough for me yet..and drum roll please i weight 184 lbs and i'm 5'5". and as a point of reference, i wear my pants loose enough by the end of the day I can usually pull them down without unbuttoning them, so this isn't like I squeezed into them. but it also matters where you shop. most of my pants are from GAP and old navy. I have a pair of Levis that are a 20 that just got too big..
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Sizing confuses the ever-living daylights out of me. I'm a medium and a size 6 or 8 depending on the brand. I'm short and still overweight for my height.
Agreed. I sell women's clothes online for 10 years now and every manufacturer is different. For instance a coldwater creek top labeled medium will measure the same as an Ann Taylor labeled small. They all have their own sizing measurements
Besides the fact that what size it says on your clothing label is bogus anyway. It means very little. You can take the same size medium top and put it on a short heavier girl and then on a tall willowy looking girl and it can appear to fit both.
Bone/frame size and body composition are what matter.
For instance an average size girl can wear a large top because she has a bigger bust and the same girl can wear a small or medium pant because she has narrow hips and no butt.
Size on a tag means absolutely nothing.
Women, especially American woman, need to put far less emphasis on size tags.
0 -
I'm 5'4, 168 lbs and I wear a size 10 but can still fit into size 8 in some brands. When I was 130lbs, I was a solid 8. It all depends on how you're built.0
-
I was looking at some clothes size and it occured to me that (US) size 8/10 are medium... If I remember correctly I was always overweight at size 8 and 10.
Was any of you at a "normal" BMI when you fit in those sizes? If not what was the first size you were when you reached normal BMI?
It didn't used to be. In my younger years 10's were much smaller than they are now. If you wear a size 10 today, 40 years ago you would have been a 14. There is a ton of vanity sizing that goes on in US women's clothing marketing. So much so, that you really can't know what size you wear from brand to brand. When it comes to small, medium, large, etc. it varies even more.0 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »Size on a tag means absolutely nothing.
Women, especially American woman, need to put far less emphasis on size tags.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
You're only an inch shorter than me. I've shrunk. I'm only 5'1". I wear a small or a medium with better brands being a medium. That's interesting about clothes for Canada.
An interesting insight into TRULY vintage sizing: Back in the '80's, my Nan gave me a size 12 dress from the '50's. I was a size 12 at the time. That sucker was TIGHT up top.
It's so true about body composition. I cannot underscore enough to people how much difference height makes. Have you tried browsing the kid's sections yet? There's some great deals there for petite basics.
I think I'm too curvy for shopping there. I have a classic hourglass shape and will likely never get something to fit me in the hips if it fits in the waist. I have proportionately large shoulders too.
I'm not very small-framed for being so short.0 -
The armhole seams on my shoulder bones only fit a 12 minimum, and that's before we get to my big ribs and some inches of boobage
I wear smaller on the bottom, but it's still an 8-10 (except for vanity sizing nowadays).
What is really freaky is that when my BMI was 13.9 (illness, not anorexia), I still wore mostly a 90's 6. That's with so little butt and so much muscle wasting that I'd never want my body to be there again!
On a different body, a 6 is lovely, of course
I just have a wide hourglass frame, like a mini Amazon 
0 -
I'm 5'10", so A size 8-10 is healthy for me.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »
You're only an inch shorter than me. I've shrunk. I'm only 5'1". I wear a small or a medium with better brands being a medium. That's interesting about clothes for Canada.
An interesting insight into TRULY vintage sizing: Back in the '80's, my Nan gave me a size 12 dress from the '50's. I was a size 12 at the time. That sucker was TIGHT up top.
It's so true about body composition. I cannot underscore enough to people how much difference height makes. Have you tried browsing the kid's sections yet? There's some great deals there for petite basics.
I think I'm too curvy for shopping there. I have a classic hourglass shape and will likely never get something to fit me in the hips if it fits in the waist. I have proportionately large shoulders too.
I'm not very small-framed for being so short.
That's how I feel, but I fit into much smaller sizes than even i'd expect. Certain brands fit the smaller yet curvy better than others - express editor pant and the target denizen, for example.0 -
When I'm at a normal BMI I can just shimmy into size 10 jeans (145 lbs 5'6"). At that weight people tell me I'm "too skinny"! No matter how hard I try I can't get into single digits, in any brand except sometimes Old Navy. I have wide hips and a big butt. Right now I can be between a size 12 pants up to a size 18/20 depending on how they are cut. I try not to look at sizes anymore. I hold the garment up to my body and measure from there. I also look to see how they are cut- if they have no room in the tush area and slim in the thighs I already know they aren't going to fit no matter what number size they are. Numbers are only a guide.0
-
daniwilford wrote: »I was looking at some clothes size and it occured to me that (US) size 8/10 are medium... If I remember correctly I was always overweight at size 8 and 10.
Was any of you at a "normal" BMI when you fit in those sizes? If not what was the first size you were when you reached normal BMI?
It didn't used to be. In my younger years 10's were much smaller than they are now. If you wear a size 10 today, 40 years ago you would have been a 14. There is a ton of vanity sizing that goes on in US women's clothing marketing. So much so, that you really can't know what size you wear from brand to brand. When it comes to small, medium, large, etc. it varies even more.
It is true that most American sizes are running much larger than they used to. Back in college in the late 1980s I was 5'2" and 110 pounds and wore size 5/6 jeans from Gap. Twenty years later, at the same height and weight I wore a 0. I don't even remember size 0 existing back when I was in high school.0 -
idk about sizes I shop primarily and stores that use i think euro sizing? I wear size 25/26 jeans and I have no idea what that correlates into normal sizing numbers.0
-
Last time I fit an 8-10 was early high school. I had to go to an 11-12 in about 11th grade, not because of weight, but because I have really wide hip bones. >< Right now I just hit under the top end of normal BMI for me and I'm wearing a 12 because I can't find an 11 women's in pants anymore.
US sizing is weird and not really standardized, so what's a 10 in one brand might be an 8 in another.
Even sizes are normally adult, odd tends to be teen/tween sizing. There's a size 14(junior, miss, girls) which is more like a size 8 women's. Clothing industry is crazy.0 -
0
-
I'm 5'7 and 161 or so... a smidge above normal BMI and I'm in a size 6 (or S)...It is SO hard to find clothes!0
-
idk about sizes I shop primarily and stores that use i think euro sizing? I wear size 25/26 jeans and I have no idea what that correlates into normal sizing numbers.
Are they maybe labelled by waist size (I believe the more expensive jeans are done this way)?
For example:
Dorinha Jeans
Size: 24
US size: 00 or XXS
Brazil: 34
Europe: 28
UK: 0
Japan: 1
Waist size: 23-24
Hip size: 32-33
Size: 25
US size: 0 or XS
Brazil: 36
Europe: 30
UK: 2
Japan: 3
Waist size: 24-25
Hip size: 34-35
^ In this particular brand, I would wear a 27 which is the equivalent to a US 4 according to their chart.
0 -
I cannot starve myself below a size 12. It just cannot be done, due to my bone structure (tall, Viking heritage, what can I say?). I know because when I was 19 I tried to do just that... I got to the point that you could count my ribs & vertebrae, and my stomach caved in between my hipbones, and my thighs were concave. At that time I could barely squeeze into a size 12 on bottom, and there was apparently no getting rid of my breasts, which were a 36 F.0
-
I bought a 6 and a 12 from the same brand the other day (at a thrift store but both items were American Eagle) and they fit almost the same! So ridiculous.0
-
daniwilford wrote: »I was looking at some clothes size and it occured to me that (US) size 8/10 are medium... If I remember correctly I was always overweight at size 8 and 10.
Was any of you at a "normal" BMI when you fit in those sizes? If not what was the first size you were when you reached normal BMI?
It didn't used to be. In my younger years 10's were much smaller than they are now. If you wear a size 10 today, 40 years ago you would have been a 14. There is a ton of vanity sizing that goes on in US women's clothing marketing. So much so, that you really can't know what size you wear from brand to brand. When it comes to small, medium, large, etc. it varies even more.
It's not an entirely apples to apples comparison. The body shapes of women have changed in that 40 years as well. We're taller now, less curvy (and by curvy, I mean the old ideal of an hourglass with a tiny waist), our waists are broader, hips may be a little broader. Basically, more women 40 years ago were the standard hourglass with tiny waists and bigger hips. Now, women are much more athletically built with less distinction between the waist and the hips. So yes, there is vanity sizing, and yes, people are more overweight now, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
What I can say is that the clothes I wore in highschool that I still have, are sized pretty comparably to the clothes now - when you consider that they're junior sizes. I have a dress that's a junior 13 from 1992...fits very similar to how a junior 13 would fit me now too.0 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »Size on a tag means absolutely nothing.
Women, especially American woman, need to put far less emphasis on size tags.
Unfortunately, size on the tag is supposed to mean something. It's supposed to give you a specific number to look for when trying to buy pants. I wish women's pants were sized like guy's pants: waist measurement x length measurement. That would make things a TON easier!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions