Is it even possible for ANYONE to be a size 0/1?
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »The only clothes that come in a size 0 here in Aus are babies clothes.
How anyone can be a size nothing totally confounds me! I would love to know why and who came up with ridiculous concept..
US (and Canadian) sizes changed from UK and Aussie sizes -- so a 2 is about the same as an AU 8 and a 0 is a 6.
Yeah I know the conversion. I just think it's stupid to have a clothing size say zero, it honestly make not one iota of sense to me, and is one of the few things that make me see red
Does it make women happy to say "look I'm sooooo skinny that I can fit into a size nothing" ?? This is the only reason I can come up with to invent a size 0
I think it is just as much to make the big sizes seem not so big. I moved to the US from Australia and started to put on weight soon after (not related to the move or food here). It was far more acceptable in my head because I was still a size 8. But in reality much larger.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »The only clothes that come in a size 0 here in Aus are babies clothes.
How anyone can be a size nothing totally confounds me! I would love to know why and who came up with ridiculous concept..
US (and Canadian) sizes changed from UK and Aussie sizes -- so a 2 is about the same as an AU 8 and a 0 is a 6.
Yeah I know the conversion. I just think it's stupid to have a clothing size say zero, it honestly make not one iota of sense to me, and is one of the few things that make me see red
Does it make women happy to say "look I'm sooooo skinny that I can fit into a size nothing" ?? This is the only reason I can come up with to invent a size 0
Oh, it's even more fun when you find size double-zero. It's not done to flatter women, at least not directly -- it's just that as the 'average' size that the clothing ranges are centered on gets larger there's less and less space at the bottom of the range. So what would have been an 6 or an 8 back in the 70s gets re-labelled a 0. Or a double-0.
1 -
(Quote) > Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall. [/quote]
^ Yes!!!! This exactly!
2 -
Citycat2015 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »The only clothes that come in a size 0 here in Aus are babies clothes.
How anyone can be a size nothing totally confounds me! I would love to know why and who came up with ridiculous concept..
US (and Canadian) sizes changed from UK and Aussie sizes -- so a 2 is about the same as an AU 8 and a 0 is a 6.
Yeah I know the conversion. I just think it's stupid to have a clothing size say zero, it honestly make not one iota of sense to me, and is one of the few things that make me see red
Does it make women happy to say "look I'm sooooo skinny that I can fit into a size nothing" ?? This is the only reason I can come up with to invent a size 0
I think it is just as much to make the big sizes seem not so big. I moved to the US from Australia and started to put on weight soon after (not related to the move or food here). It was far more acceptable in my head because I was still a size 8. But in reality much larger.Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »The only clothes that come in a size 0 here in Aus are babies clothes.
How anyone can be a size nothing totally confounds me! I would love to know why and who came up with ridiculous concept..
US (and Canadian) sizes changed from UK and Aussie sizes -- so a 2 is about the same as an AU 8 and a 0 is a 6.
Yeah I know the conversion. I just think it's stupid to have a clothing size say zero, it honestly make not one iota of sense to me, and is one of the few things that make me see red
Does it make women happy to say "look I'm sooooo skinny that I can fit into a size nothing" ?? This is the only reason I can come up with to invent a size 0
Oh, it's even more fun when you find size double-zero. It's not done to flatter women, at least not directly -- it's just that as the 'average' size that the clothing ranges are centered on gets larger there's less and less space at the bottom of the range. So what would have been an 6 or an 8 back in the 70s gets re-labelled a 0. Or a double-0.
Ahhh ok, that make sense I guess.0 -
I wear smaller than a 000 which is smaller than I was a teen. My waist size is several inches smaller (was 25, now 22), so yes it's possible to be a size 0 or 1. I haven't found any companies that make waist sizes smaller than 23". 0 and 00s aren't that small anymore, I think most people could fit into a 0 if they really wanted to at most major stores due to vanity sizing.
Oh my god you have got to be kidding me.1 -
emmylootwo wrote: »I wear smaller than a 000 which is smaller than I was a teen. My waist size is several inches smaller (was 25, now 22), so yes it's possible to be a size 0 or 1. I haven't found any companies that make waist sizes smaller than 23". 0 and 00s aren't that small anymore, I think most people could fit into a 0 if they really wanted to at most major stores due to vanity sizing.
Oh my god you have got to be kidding me.
I'm not sure which part of her comment made you say this, but I'm wondering if it's the part I'm kind of taking issue with which is "I think most people could fit into a 0 if they really wanted to at most major stores due to vanity sizing." I agree wholeheartedly that vanity sizing is crazy in the U.S., but that statement is a bit farfetched. If I gained ten pounds, I would not be fitting into my size 00 or 0 from Target anymore. Most people do not have a waist that is 25 inches or less.0 -
It depends on the woman. I doubt I could ever be a size 0 because of my wide hip bones. If it were possible I'm quite certain I'd have to be emaciated. But I have a cousin who has been a size zero for most of her life (except when pregnant). She has very narrow hips and shoulders.0
-
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
Ah that would be me then, I wasn't having a go at anyone at all. I also don't like the bodybuilder/physique look, is there a rule out there that I should?
I don't personally know anyone who is a size 0, just what I see through the media and the unfortunate souls who I look after who are probably a size 00000. I just wrongly assumed you couldn't be a size 0 without starving. This site has shown me that you can be healthy & a size 0
1 -
msalicia116 wrote: »I was a size 10-12 at 16 and a 00 at 33 years old with a 3 year old. And I'm 5'6". I was lean but never sickly in any way at a 00.
I can only speak for myself, but people always said I was big boned and would always be a big girl. Wrong. Once I lost the weight I realized I'm not big boned at all! It was just the weight that made it look so. People also said getting older makes ones body naturally weigh more. Wrong. I weighed less the older I got. Perception really is everything. And if we want to be honest the bmi guidelines, I think, are more than fair and forgiving. We may not want to believe it because of our egos, but the healthier we get over time and the more we understand the process, allowing ourselves a chance to get used to changes in perception, the more we begin to see those guidelines make perfect sense.
I agree that BMI guidelines make sense for women and most men. But that doesn't mean every woman can get to a size 0 and be healthy. When my BMI was 18.5 I wore a size 5 pants (US).0 -
emmylootwo wrote: »I wear smaller than a 000 which is smaller than I was a teen. My waist size is several inches smaller (was 25, now 22), so yes it's possible to be a size 0 or 1. I haven't found any companies that make waist sizes smaller than 23". 0 and 00s aren't that small anymore, I think most people could fit into a 0 if they really wanted to at most major stores due to vanity sizing.
Oh my god you have got to be kidding me.
I'm not sure which part of her comment made you say this, but I'm wondering if it's the part I'm kind of taking issue with which is "I think most people could fit into a 0 if they really wanted to at most major stores due to vanity sizing." I agree wholeheartedly that vanity sizing is crazy in the U.S., but that statement is a bit farfetched. If I gained ten pounds, I would not be fitting into my size 00 or 0 from Target anymore. Most people do not have a waist that is 25 inches or less.
That's the statement that is WAY farfetched... Even if I was underweight I don't think that my waist could go lower than 28 inches. There's no way I'd ever fit a size 0 unless I was cutting my bones. Although yeah I fit in some Old Navy size 2 clothes, so I guess maybe in a couple years, lol!0 -
Possible? Yes
A good idea? No
Better to think in terms of good health than clothing size.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »This is a genuine question, is size 0 even healthy?
My aunt has been a size 0/00 almost all my life (and her's too I'm sure). I think just recently she started to go up. Now my mom (her sister is in the 20's for a size) and was a 0 back when she was a teenager but after her 1st kid (me) she never saw that size again. Everyone is right that says that not every one can get back to a smaller size simply based on the fact that as you age hormones change the way your body is structured over the years. Obviously, your body is not the same at 21 as it was at 14 and it wont be the same at 30 or 35 either. It's ever changing. I'm not sure I've ever been a 0/00 but I think even achieving a 6 would be a big challenge for me. I think I looked my best at a 10 but I'm also heavier in the butt and thighs. Body shape, bone structure and where you carry make a huge difference in what size jeans/pants you will fit in. Assuming that you are American wearing clothes that are based on US sizes could make a huge difference, too. Especially, since information has been coming out that the American sizing system for women is so out of whack!!0 -
What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.3
-
Size 6 now is not what a size 6 was 20 or 30 years ago. The US is very much into vanity sizing. Is zero the new six?
When I was a kid, my mother was 5 ft 1 1/2, 110 pounds and wore a size 8-10. I'll bet those size tens are now about a 4-6. She was really tiny.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
Ah that would be me then, I wasn't having a go at anyone at all. I also don't like the bodybuilder/physique look, is there a rule out there that I should?
I don't personally know anyone who is a size 0, just what I see through the media and the unfortunate souls who I look after who are probably a size 00000. I just wrongly assumed you couldn't be a size 0 without starving. This site has shown me that you can be healthy & a size 0
You probably know several people who are 0s...but most people don't go around announcing their clothing sizes, apart from around MFP, haha.
I'm going to look for a full body photo of me so you can see what "size 0" actually looks like, because I think you'll be very surprised. I look generally pretty rounded and curvy, even kind of chubby around the thighs/arms/face right now, but I'm still wearing 0s due to narrow frame and vanity sizing.
ETA: click behind the spoiler and you'll see a photo of me in an XS top and a size 0 skirt, and you'll see that you don't have to look super thin to be in those sizes.
It's not a flattering photo and I can make myself look more slender in the right clothes and the right angles, but it's just to demonstrate that plenty of people you see day-to-day are being sized into 0s thanks to the way clothing sizes are exploding. I wonder every time I shop what truly skinny people do for clothing. Tailor, buy designer, order from Asia, or swim in their clothes, I guess.
5 -
Size 6 now is not what a size 6 was 20 or 30 years ago. The US is very much into vanity sizing. Is zero the new six?
When I was a kid, my mother was 5 ft 1 1/2, 110 pounds and wore a size 8-10. I'll bet those size tens are now about a 4-6. She was really tiny.
I was PISSED when the shop lady told me I needed a zero, truthfully. Not happy about it. My hips were 35", I am tall and my build is straight, with good shoulders and not super narrow anywhere, that's not crazy small and they were sizing me out of existence? What in the world are actually skinny ladies to do if I, with a more average frame size, need the smallest size in the store? I see girls who are smaller than that all the time.
I feel like with a slender build and tall, even when thin I should be Small-Medium, the bigger small size, not XS-Small, because I am not an extra small person. But Medium keeps getting recentered as people get fatter, and if Medium gets bigger, so does Small, even though small people are probably still the same size.
Even so, I still have much more trouble with height than circumference, when looking for clothes. It's fine that they want to re-center Medium, it makes sense to put that in the middle, but then when companies start their Tall clothes at Medium, it's effectively starting them at Large. There is almost never an XS tall, and often never a Small Tall. I'm not super tall but the rise in regular length pants is too short, so the waist lands in the wrong place.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
Actually adults experience a hip width expansion of 1-2 inches between age 20 and 40. This corresponds to a circumference increase on average of 3 inches.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
Actually adults experience a hip width expansion of 1-2 inches between age 20 and 40. This corresponds to a circumference increase on average of 3 inches.
I'd be interested in reading that study. I know many fit people who are in their forties, fifties and sixties who are the same size they were in high school. A little change isn't bad, but several dress sizes isn't caused by a little hip expansion1 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
Ah that would be me then, I wasn't having a go at anyone at all. I also don't like the bodybuilder/physique look, is there a rule out there that I should?
I don't personally know anyone who is a size 0, just what I see through the media and the unfortunate souls who I look after who are probably a size 00000. I just wrongly assumed you couldn't be a size 0 without starving. This site has shown me that you can be healthy & a size 0
You probably know several people who are 0s...but most people don't go around announcing their clothing sizes, apart from around MFP, haha.
I'm going to look for a full body photo of me so you can see what "size 0" actually looks like, because I think you'll be very surprised. I look generally pretty rounded and curvy, even kind of chubby around the thighs/arms/face right now, but I'm still wearing 0s due to narrow frame and vanity sizing.
ETA: click behind the spoiler and you'll see a photo of me in an XS top and a size 0 skirt, and you'll see that you don't have to look super thin to be in those sizes.
It's not a flattering photo and I can make myself look more slender in the right clothes and the right angles, but it's just to demonstrate that plenty of people you see day-to-day are being sized into 0s thanks to the way clothing sizes are exploding. I wonder every time I shop what truly skinny people do for clothing. Tailor, buy designer, order from Asia, or swim in their clothes, I guess.
I totally agree with this. Often I buy a size 2 or an XS and I'm really not that small. I start wondering what really tiny people do. Vanity sizing in this country is out of control (although the exception is H&M where the clothes are cut super small, must be because it's a European brand)0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
They almost certainly did. OP is a teenager.0 -
00 makes me cry. I'll never be that size, and I don't think I'd look good at that size. I've got a large frame, and despite knowing this, it bugs me when I'll be a sixteen and others who weigh more than me are wearing 12s. It almost feels like it's not fair. But then again, if I was a 12, I'd be super happy!
Don't kid yourself. Just because you are or may be a size 0 or 00 in a particular clothing style or brand doesn't mean that it is you actual size. What we all agree in here that regardless of our measurements and sizes the clothing industry and the manufacturers are the ones that dictate what size clothing we wear, and that is also country specific.0 -
I've never been small enough to know for sure, but I truly truly doubt I could get into a 0 ever while in a healthy weight range for my height, just due to how I'm shaped (bones AND fat distribution).
I have not quite 60lbs to lose to get to the top of the healthy weight range for my height, with the bottom being about 95lbs away. Using the sizing charts for Gap (which I figured was pretty average for US sizing), and comparing to my recently taken measurements, in order to get into a size 0 I'd need to lose 8.5 inches from my waist (totally doable), 11.5 inches from my bust (less control over this but sadly probably doable, haha, as much as I hope it doesn't happen), and 17 inches from my hips. SEVENTEEN. Currently, my bust measurement puts me in a 16-18 top, my waist measurement puts me into a 14-16 jeans, and my hips are off the chart, which ends at a size 20 - if it kept going it looks like I'd be at a size 24. If my waist to hip ratio stayed the same, in order to get my hips small enough to wear a 0 I would need to get my waist measurement down to 22.5 inches, which I see a poster just claimed to have, but for MANY/MOST women would be unhealthy, and certainly would be for me at 5'5".
Also, yes, I have a REALLY hard time finding pants that fit me properly. 0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
I said that, not because a size zero is bad but because very often...and in particular young women on this site seem to aspire to things that they are not genetically capable of...like thigh gap...size zero would also be one of those things. I also think it's just weird to actually aspire to be a certain size of clothing, particularly when it's not it's not uniform and sizes are all over the place depending on brand, etc...it just doesn't compute with me...I've never sat here and thought...."wow...wouldn't it be great to have a 32 waist"...just not anything that would every cross my mind despite the fact that I was a 28 waist in high school.
Again, nothing wrong with the size...it's that I see a lot of people on these boards aspiring to things that are 1) not at all important and 2) not genetically feasible.1 -
I was small enough 4 yours ago that my size according to the clothing mfg was a zero.. I am now not so zero like any more..LOL LOL
And this hip expansion thing mentioned above does not exist.. my hips have not expanded except in fat and muscle which I did on purpose and I will be 48 in two months.
So who ever has that study or posted this 'truth', please post it..1 -
I've never been small enough to know for sure, but I truly truly doubt I could get into a 0 ever while in a healthy weight range for my height, just due to how I'm shaped (bones AND fat distribution).
I have not quite 60lbs to lose to get to the top of the healthy weight range for my height, with the bottom being about 95lbs away. Using the sizing charts for Gap (which I figured was pretty average for US sizing), and comparing to my recently taken measurements, in order to get into a size 0 I'd need to lose 8.5 inches from my waist (totally doable), 11.5 inches from my bust (less control over this but sadly probably doable, haha, as much as I hope it doesn't happen), and 17 inches from my hips. SEVENTEEN. Currently, my bust measurement puts me in a 16-18 top, my waist measurement puts me into a 14-16 jeans, and my hips are off the chart, which ends at a size 20 - if it kept going it looks like I'd be at a size 24. If my waist to hip ratio stayed the same, in order to get my hips small enough to wear a 0 I would need to get my waist measurement down to 22.5 inches, which I see a poster just claimed to have, but for MANY/MOST women would be unhealthy, and certainly would be for me at 5'5".
Also, yes, I have a REALLY hard time finding pants that fit me properly.
Your hips may shrink more than your waist as you get slimmer, though. Generally very lean people are less curvy, there is less variation as you get smaller. Not that curvy-skinny doesn't exist, it does, but is less common, ribcage and hipbones are usually pretty close in size. You probably have more fat in hips and butt, which by the way is a healthy body type, and your waist is closer to its eventual size. It's unlikely that you'd shrink all proportionately.
But YES it's entirely possible to have a hipbone measurement that doesn't fit into some size, and it's unusual to be shaped exactly like a size chart anyway. That doesn't mean those sizes are wrong or impossible, it means that skeletons are different shapes and sizes.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
They almost certainly did. OP is a teenager.
Ok, 4 years really matters to her. Big difference between 15 and 19. She may or may not be able to get down to the same size. It depends on how much she developed over the last four years. The problem is we can't really tell and quite a bit depends on her current body fat percentage. Size 6, 133ish at 5'4" leaves plenty of room for weight loss though.2 -
In general the shorter you are the more petite once you lose weight down to a healthy range. Not that the number of the size matters. Find the healthy weight range where you feel best, then many of us fluctuate throughout the seasons with 2-3 sizes because it really turns out that maintaining is not standing like a statue. Who cares what the size is, most people who see a beautiful woman or man nicely dressed and looking awesome could care less what the size is.0
-
I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.2 -
msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
I agree. I've hit my first goal. I've been overweight forever, and couldn't imagine being small (not that I am yet). At my highest I was 280, but spent most of my adult life at 250ish. I just wanted to get down to 180. I'm pretty much there, and I now realize I have a long way to go until I get the body I wanted.
I thought I'd look good at 180 because "I'm big boned" and "I have a lot of muscle". Not nearly as much as I thought; I still have a lot of fat.1 -
I've never been small enough to know for sure, but I truly truly doubt I could get into a 0 ever while in a healthy weight range for my height, just due to how I'm shaped (bones AND fat distribution).
I have not quite 60lbs to lose to get to the top of the healthy weight range for my height, with the bottom being about 95lbs away. Using the sizing charts for Gap (which I figured was pretty average for US sizing), and comparing to my recently taken measurements, in order to get into a size 0 I'd need to lose 8.5 inches from my waist (totally doable), 11.5 inches from my bust (less control over this but sadly probably doable, haha, as much as I hope it doesn't happen), and 17 inches from my hips. SEVENTEEN. Currently, my bust measurement puts me in a 16-18 top, my waist measurement puts me into a 14-16 jeans, and my hips are off the chart, which ends at a size 20 - if it kept going it looks like I'd be at a size 24. If my waist to hip ratio stayed the same, in order to get my hips small enough to wear a 0 I would need to get my waist measurement down to 22.5 inches, which I see a poster just claimed to have, but for MANY/MOST women would be unhealthy, and certainly would be for me at 5'5".
Also, yes, I have a REALLY hard time finding pants that fit me properly.
Your hips may shrink more than your waist as you get slimmer, though. Generally very lean people are less curvy, there is less variation as you get smaller. Not that curvy-skinny doesn't exist, it does, but is less common, ribcage and hipbones are usually pretty close in size. You probably have more fat in hips and butt, which by the way is a healthy body type, and your waist is closer to its eventual size. It's unlikely that you'd shrink all proportionately.
But YES it's entirely possible to have a hipbone measurement that doesn't fit into some size, and it's unusual to be shaped exactly like a size chart anyway. That doesn't mean those sizes are wrong or impossible, it means that skeletons are different shapes and sizes.
I know I would be unlikely to shrink totally proportionately (the waist to hip ratio and size chart things were just an illustration of my current proportions), especially as I approached the bottom of a healthy weight range, but prior to having kids I was at about 150-160lbs for quite awhile and my proportions were almost identical at that point - I remember when I bought my wedding dress and they took my measurements, my waist put me at a size 8, my bust was like a 10 or a 12, but I had to buy a 20 to accommodate my hips and then alter the rest down. (I know wedding dress sizing can be odd, but it's again just to paint a picture.)
As a woman, even at the leanest I could possibly be and still be healthy (not being an athlete) I'd have 15-20% body fat - that fat has to go somewhere, and given that I historically have carried the vast majority of my fat in my hips/butt/thighs, regardless of my size, I assume that I would continue to do so if I got even smaller. Also, it's not totally a fat distribution thing; my bone structure is a relatively small piece of the puzzle as it is for most people, but, as compared to a typical woman, I do apparently have a wider than average pelvis and hip joint placement (at least, that's what a physical therapist pointed out to me after looking at some x-rays several years ago, and I assume he's seen a lot of such things).
So, yeah. Point being, to the OP's question of if absolutely anyone could be a size 0, I'm 99.99% certain that I could not, and was just trying to back up why I believed that so strongly without having ever been small enough to be 100% certain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions