Is it even possible for ANYONE to be a size 0/1?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I was a size 6 when I was in college...20 years ago. I am slightly larger/heavier than I was back then, yet I am currently wearing size 2 pants. I see many women who are much slimmer than me and wonder if they have to shop in the juniors department to find clothes that fit. That's not right.
Department stores/designers want you to say "Oooo, I'm so excited I can fit into these size 00 pants that I'm going to buy 3 pairs!" Slimey marketing techniques.
1 -
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.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
4 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »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.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
My goodness, do you disappear when you turn sideways? Or are you not in the U.S.? I am the height and weight in your picture and look about that size (except I'd have to stuff the bra with foam or something to have those boobs) and size 10 US pants would just fall around my ankles. Do you know what your hip measurement was? I'm at about 37" and that's a pretty solid size 4 nowadays.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »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.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
My goodness, do you disappear when you turn sideways? Or are you not in the U.S.? I am the height and weight in your picture and look about that size (except I'd have to stuff the bra with foam or something to have those boobs) and size 10 US pants would just fall around my ankles. Do you know what your hip measurement was? I'm at about 37" and that's a pretty solid size 4 nowadays.
This is at size 10US. I have a wide pelvis and rib cage, so as I lose weight, my width stays the same (already as narrow as my ribcage and bi-iliac distance allows) and my "depth" gets smaller and smaller.
I think my hips were about 42" there. Right now I weigh 6 pounds less and they are 41.25"
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »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.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
Haha, what? You should feel secure enough to make a statement without projecting or putting words in my mouth.
Cute pic by the way. You look amazing.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »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.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
My goodness, do you disappear when you turn sideways? Or are you not in the U.S.? I am the height and weight in your picture and look about that size (except I'd have to stuff the bra with foam or something to have those boobs) and size 10 US pants would just fall around my ankles. Do you know what your hip measurement was? I'm at about 37" and that's a pretty solid size 4 nowadays.
My thoughts exactly but with her tone you can tell she isn't really in the mood to have a discussion, which is fine too.0 -
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.
Congrats on reaching your first goal! I took it one goal at a time. And each goal shocked me! I needed time to wrap my head around the size and numbers before pursuing another goal because I still couldn't believe it
0 -
My hips and ribcage are wide so even if I lose lots of weight I will be lucky if I get much lower than a UK 10 / US 60
-
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..
That's not entirely true. I have a hard time believing that it's as she stated, that it's that pronounced in a significant amount of the population (I'd be interested in reading that study), but it is common in women who have been pregnant. I was at my all time lowest weight after my second daughter was born and my hips were 2" bigger...there's no way I could ever get to my pre-pregnancy hip measurement. Just like after pregnancy it's not uncommon to go up a shoe size because of ligament relaxing, hip expansion does exist. Hormones widen the pubic symphysis and SI joints and they don't always go back.
0 -
sunnybeaches105 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.
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 expansion
Berger, A. A., May, R., Renner, J. B., Viradia, N. and Dahners, L. E. (2011), Surprising evidence of pelvic growth (widening) after skeletal maturity. J. Orthop. Res., 29: 1719–1723. doi: 10.1002/jor.21469
Here you go!
And the layman's news blurb coverage, which was surprisingly not bad:
Big Fat Truth: Hip Bones Widen With Age
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions