Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.1 -
rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
it is silly if the sizes are not equal.
But as a woman is used to say what you have but still wear a size 4-6 @ 145-150 lbs I can say you are incorrect...
and I agree with this poster the fact that a size 12 is average (I think it's 14-16 now) is scary...because it isn't healthy...regardless of how you feel your bones come into play.
When you hit a healthy BMI...that's a good indicator...and guess what it's a number and yes there are those who are outliers but most are not.
I still think it's ludicrous to judge health by a size. I'm not there right now, but I was a scooch over a normal BMI (less than 1 point) and wearing a size 12 in about 1/4 of my clothing with exemplary health markers based on blood work and running a ~16:30 two mile (which I get it is not a speed demon, but just adding it in there to demonstrate that my aerobic fitness was okay as well). I'm not trying to say that you can be of optimal health no matter the size in the long run, but to ascertain that size 12 (or x or whatever) isn't healthy is using a very broad brush to paint over a silly measure.
When I get down to my ultimate goal weight within 'normal' BMI, I will probably still be a size 10 (maybe 8 with the current sizing trend). That won't make me unhealthier than someone who is a size 6. And, I'm not using bone structure as any kind of excuse here. I was never 'big boned', I was more fat and now I am less so, and I still have broad shoulders, wide-ish hips and long limbs. Even now, most clothing that comfortably fits my shoulders is too big around the waist. And, I'm not exactly an outlier - there are plenty of other women with my general dimensions.
I think it's misguided to say that size 12 being average is 'scary'; Now, if you want to say that having over 32% or 34% or whatever is average (just throwing those numbers out there as I don't know what the real number it) body fat is "scary" or "unhealthy", that's probably a better argument.
Edit for clarification
It is scary because it's vanity sizing and chances are it's really a size 16...
My prom dress from 2000 is a size 10...fits me like a glove then and does now too...
My dresses I buy today are size 6 or 4 even...
I think if you are in a healthy BMI range you are healthier than if you were in a higher range...
given all things being equal...you are healthier if you are not considered fat/obese/over weight.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Even if we take manufacturers out of the equation, why is it not okay for two hypothetical women who are the exact same shape and height to have different preferences? What makes size 12 not okay, bar health problems? Few are obese at that size.
I think it would depend on how you/we are using "okay". If you simply mean it's okay for them and none of our business, then I'd agree it's okay.
I mean all kinds of okay. Being slightly overweight carries only marginally increased risk that could be considered okay. Not like by crossing the normal/overweight line even by one pound you are suddenly at risk for everything bad that you weren't at risk for before. I don't see people pushing the same doomsday predictions for those who are under 20 BMI but still a healthy weight, although they're statistically at a similar risk, or even slightly higher, than those who are slightly overweight.
The problem with the average being size 12/slightly overweight is not the number itself, but the fact that a high rate of true obesity is pushing the average above normal.
To the bolded: You might be surprised.
Having been both obese (BMI just over 30) and low-ish normal (BMI 19-20), I heard it at both ends of that continuum, but the message arrived very differently.
When I was obese, I read a lot and heard a lot in media about how horrible obesity was, regarding both health and appearance. I know that some people are individually criticized (by family, SO, cat-calling strangers), but I never was. To the contrary: On the rare occasion when I'd refer to myself as "fat" because it was both true and relevant in the moment, I'd get "Oh, no, you're not fat!" or "Why would you say such an unkind thing about yourself?" (WTH!?!)
Once I was down near the lower bound of normal - with a narrow-pelvis, post-mastectomy build that can handle it and still have adequate body fat, trust me - there was nada to the negative in mass/general communications, but friends started freaking out: I heard worries about anorexia (WTH?!?) while eating 2000 calories a day, "Women your age should carry some extra weight" (I'm 61, BTW), " What if you get sick? You won't have any body fat to fall back on!" (I'd guess my BF% is mid-20s).
People who would never have criticized or cautioned fat me were perfectly happy to criticize sort-of-thin me. Sure, some of it is over-reaction to the shock of the change, but that "license to criticize personally" thing isn't all shock, IMO.
7 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?0 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
If that were completely true, I wouldn't have to buy a larger size to fit my height, even though my waist fits a much smaller size. Because: women's sizing sucks! I swear, they think at a size 8 I must be a lot shorter than I am, even "long" length are iffy.1 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Even if we take manufacturers out of the equation, why is it not okay for two hypothetical women who are the exact same shape and height to have different preferences? What makes size 12 not okay, bar health problems? Few are obese at that size.
It's okay to have preferences, but I can tell you that very short women are usually obese at a size 12. I know I was, I know my sister is currently.
Agree. I'm now a size 12 (previously a 16/18) and my BMI is still a 30.2. I'm 5'6 so I'm not short at all.
When I started out, I wore a 12. I'm 5'4" and weighed 145lbs which is just shy of overweight. I was carrying about 30% BF though so skinny fat at best. It is possible but not common and not really anything to celebrate.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?
I have no idea what size pants other men wear, what the average is, or wear I stand in comparison. Same with suits. It never crosses my mind. I don't think there is a commonly accepted metric for men similar to a woman's numeric size, which seems to be on their minds a lot.1 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
If that were completely true, I wouldn't have to buy a larger size to fit my height, even though my waist fits a much smaller size. Because: women's sizing sucks! I swear, they think at a size 8 I must be a lot shorter than I am, even "long" length are iffy.
I only own one pair of jeans now and instead wear dresses and skirts, (layered with leggings in the cold months). I got fed up with how ridiculous sizing/fit is for jeans!0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?
I have no idea what size pants other men wear, what the average is, or wear I stand in comparison. Same with suits. It never crosses my mind. I don't think there is a commonly accepted metric for men similar to a woman's numeric size, which seems to be on their minds a lot.
I believe that men's pants sizes directly correlate to the waist measurement, whereas women's sizes seem to correlate with the tide, the phase of the moon, the colour of the queen's corgi's breakfast and the number of blowflies which land on the windowsill of the designer that morning.29 -
rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
I would be near skeletal in a size 12. Just sayin'. Too much height, too much bust. In order for me to be a 12, I would have to be on the low end of a healthy BMI.3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
If that were completely true, I wouldn't have to buy a larger size to fit my height, even though my waist fits a much smaller size. Because: women's sizing sucks! I swear, they think at a size 8 I must be a lot shorter than I am, even "long" length are iffy.
I only own one pair of jeans now and instead wear dresses and skirts, (layered with leggings in the cold months). I got fed up with how ridiculous sizing/fit is for jeans!OliveGirl128 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
If that were completely true, I wouldn't have to buy a larger size to fit my height, even though my waist fits a much smaller size. Because: women's sizing sucks! I swear, they think at a size 8 I must be a lot shorter than I am, even "long" length are iffy.
I only own one pair of jeans now and instead wear dresses and skirts, (layered with leggings in the cold months). I got fed up with how ridiculous sizing/fit is for jeans!
I have to do something weird for jeans now. I buy men's Levi's 501's in a 34/34. I take a hot shower in them, the go outside into the sun. They shrink to fit me. When I'm done, they end up at a 29/30" waist and 30" inseam, because cotton shrinks in hot water the first few washes. Hard to find women's jeans (other than online) that are still 100% cotton.5 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.10 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?
I have no idea what size pants other men wear, what the average is, or wear I stand in comparison. Same with suits. It never crosses my mind. I don't think there is a commonly accepted metric for men similar to a woman's numeric size, which seems to be on their minds a lot.
I believe that men's pants sizes directly correlate to the waist measurement, whereas women's sizes seem to correlate with the tide, the phase of the moon, the colour of the queen's corgi's breakfast and the number of blowflies which land on the windowsill of the designer that morning.
I believe you're right. I have jeans that fit exactly the same that range from 6-12. At least a lot of juniors sizes are starting to use actual waist sizes for thier jeans. Now to wait until the whole "skinny" look fades so I can find some that fits a small waist and muscular legs.1 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »
I have to do something weird for jeans now. I buy men's Levi's 501's in a 34/34. I take a hot shower in them, the go outside into the sun. They shrink to fit me. When I'm done, they end up at a 29/30" waist and 30" inseam, because cotton shrinks in hot water the first few washes. Hard to find women's jeans (other than online) that are still 100% cotton.
Cotton does NOT shrink by 15% across the weft. If it is really poor quality and loosely woven it MIGHT shrink by 10% along the warp. Denim is a special tight weave and does not shrink like that.
5 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?
I have no idea what size pants other men wear, what the average is, or wear I stand in comparison. Same with suits. It never crosses my mind. I don't think there is a commonly accepted metric for men similar to a woman's numeric size, which seems to be on their minds a lot.
I believe that men's pants sizes directly correlate to the waist measurement, whereas women's sizes seem to correlate with the tide, the phase of the moon, the colour of the queen's corgi's breakfast and the number of blowflies which land on the windowsill of the designer that morning.
Yeah, lots of men's pants nominally go by waist and inseam measure - a sane system, though I don't know whether manufacturers have vanity-fudged that as they do women's numeric sizes. I was helpfully advised (on another thread IIRC) that men's S-M-L-XL shirt sizes have gone through the vanity magic over time, by a guy whose college shirt fit, but was labeled notably larger than similar-size new ones.2 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
I have a 29" waist and have to wear a 12 to fit quads and glutes, and height. It sucks. My go to brand is now Forever 21 ultra distressed boyfriend cut (100% demin), sized by inches, slightly loose on the thighs and distressed so I have even more room there. Sometimes I wish it were acceptable to just wear a bedsheet.3 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
I have a 29" waist and have to wear a 12 to fit quads and glutes, and height. It sucks. My go to brand is now Forever 21 ultra distressed boyfriend cut (100% demin), sized by inches, slightly loose on the thighs and distressed so I have even more room there. Sometimes I wish it were acceptable to just wear a bedsheet.
Something I've wondered why are pants sizes in "waist" size when the pants don't even go around your waist !? I have a 28inch waist but fit into 00/0 because my hips are narrow. Shouldn't pants size be hip? I don't have any pants that go up to my waist except high waisted pants lol. This is something I've always wondered1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
I have a 29" waist and have to wear a 12 to fit quads and glutes, and height. It sucks. My go to brand is now Forever 21 ultra distressed boyfriend cut (100% demin), sized by inches, slightly loose on the thighs and distressed so I have even more room there. Sometimes I wish it were acceptable to just wear a bedsheet.
Something I've wondered why are pants sizes in "waist" size when the pants don't even go around your waist !? I have a 28inch waist but fit into 00/0 because my hips are narrow. Shouldn't pants size be hip? I don't have any pants that go up to my waist except high waisted pants lol. This is something I've always wondered
Me too! I'm 5'3" 113 lbs no hips and carry all my fat around my middle (34" waist). I wear mid-rise pants because the hips tend to be narrower. When I try on pants that fit around my waist the amount of extra material in the hips and butt could make a pair of matching shorts. I fit into a 0 - 2 size which baffles me because I wore a larger size when I was younger and weighed less.0 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »
I have to do something weird for jeans now. I buy men's Levi's 501's in a 34/34. I take a hot shower in them, the go outside into the sun. They shrink to fit me. When I'm done, they end up at a 29/30" waist and 30" inseam, because cotton shrinks in hot water the first few washes. Hard to find women's jeans (other than online) that are still 100% cotton.
Cotton does NOT shrink by 15% across the weft. If it is really poor quality and loosely woven it MIGHT shrink by 10% along the warp. Denim is a special tight weave and does not shrink like that.
@VeronicaA76's comment made me laugh. (Nicely so)
My first pair of jeans were Levi's 50? (Zip not 501button). I was 14 and Levi's had just hit the UK. The first thing anyone did with them was sit in a hot bath with a dash of bleach, to soften up the fabric and shape them to fit- they were like cardboard.
Mine were 27x27, they didn't shrink too much, just shaped to the body- kind of like fresh from the drier now.
Oh by the way, this was 50 years ago.
Cheers, h.4 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?
I have no idea what size pants other men wear, what the average is, or wear I stand in comparison. Same with suits. It never crosses my mind. I don't think there is a commonly accepted metric for men similar to a woman's numeric size, which seems to be on their minds a lot.
I believe that men's pants sizes directly correlate to the waist measurement, whereas women's sizes seem to correlate with the tide, the phase of the moon, the colour of the queen's corgi's breakfast and the number of blowflies which land on the windowsill of the designer that morning.
Yes, the measurements of men's pants are pretty consistent across brands. Otherwise, we would have to try everything on, and that would be a ridiculous inconvenience.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I wonder what the equivalent of this would be for men? The lack of a numeric system is problematic, it requires a number of different stats to make a comparison. Count us lucky
Pants sizes and suit jacket size?
I have no idea what size pants other men wear, what the average is, or wear I stand in comparison. Same with suits. It never crosses my mind. I don't think there is a commonly accepted metric for men similar to a woman's numeric size, which seems to be on their minds a lot.
I believe that men's pants sizes directly correlate to the waist measurement, whereas women's sizes seem to correlate with the tide, the phase of the moon, the colour of the queen's corgi's breakfast and the number of blowflies which land on the windowsill of the designer that morning.
Yes, the measurements of men's pants are pretty consistent across brands. Otherwise, we would have to try everything on, and that would be a ridiculous inconvenience.
It is indeed.6 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
Generic size charts are a daydream.
And it seems you're not in the US, so size 12 is something entirely different for you than for me? (BTW, the sizeguide site absolutely refuses to function for me, on either of 2 devices I have at hand.)
Looking at Wikipedia's sizing article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size), the US ASTM 2011 standards for a size 12 (misses) waist/hip would be 32.5"/41" in straight cut, and 30.75"/41.75" in curvy. A 34.5" waist would be about a size 14 straight or 16 curvy.
And you're missing my point.
Using the sizes above, one would require a size 12 if one's hips were 41", regardless of waist size. In these sizes, my waist & hips are at least a size apart (6 and 0 in curvy, 4 and 2 in straight).
I agree that some women who are 5'6" plus or minus 2" and wearing US size 12 may be heavier than desirable for optimal health. Some may not. I weighed about 142 pounds (BMI 23.6, several pounds into the normal range) at that size (using the size charts I quoted), but that's still too heavy for me. My 6'1" rowing double partner would be a perfectly reasonable weight in that size.
Are most American women "too heavy"? Unquestionably. But judging individuals purely by numeric size alone? Silly.
Edited: typos7 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
I have a 29" waist and have to wear a 12 to fit quads and glutes, and height. It sucks. My go to brand is now Forever 21 ultra distressed boyfriend cut (100% demin), sized by inches, slightly loose on the thighs and distressed so I have even more room there. Sometimes I wish it were acceptable to just wear a bedsheet.
Something I've wondered why are pants sizes in "waist" size when the pants don't even go around your waist !? I have a 28inch waist but fit into 00/0 because my hips are narrow. Shouldn't pants size be hip? I don't have any pants that go up to my waist except high waisted pants lol. This is something I've always wondered
On women they should! Most women are built widest at the hips. That's where pants should be measured from. Probably vanity sizing. Some people just insist on a smaller number even when it is meaningless.
0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Even if we take manufacturers out of the equation, why is it not okay for two hypothetical women who are the exact same shape and height to have different preferences? What makes size 12 not okay, bar health problems? Few are obese at that size.
It's okay to have preferences, but I can tell you that very short women are usually obese at a size 12. I know I was, I know my sister is currently.
Agree. I'm now a size 12 (previously a 16/18) and my BMI is still a 30.2. I'm 5'6 so I'm not short at all.
When I started out, I wore a 12. I'm 5'4" and weighed 145lbs which is just shy of overweight. I was carrying about 30% BF though so skinny fat at best. It is possible but not common and not really anything to celebrate.
Oh, I wasn't celebrating it at all. My point was that I am tallish and a size 12 and I'm still considered obese. The PP said that 12 would be considered obese on someone short. It's still obese on me too, someone average/tall. Not many women will be at a "healthy" BMI at a size 12.1 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Even if we take manufacturers out of the equation, why is it not okay for two hypothetical women who are the exact same shape and height to have different preferences? What makes size 12 not okay, bar health problems? Few are obese at that size.
It's okay to have preferences, but I can tell you that very short women are usually obese at a size 12. I know I was, I know my sister is currently.
Agree. I'm now a size 12 (previously a 16/18) and my BMI is still a 30.2. I'm 5'6 so I'm not short at all.
When I started out, I wore a 12. I'm 5'4" and weighed 145lbs which is just shy of overweight. I was carrying about 30% BF though so skinny fat at best. It is possible but not common and not really anything to celebrate.
Oh, I wasn't celebrating it at all. My point was that I am tallish and a size 12 and I'm still considered obese. The PP said that 12 would be considered obese on someone short. It's still obese on me too, someone average/tall. Not many women will be at a "healthy" BMI at a size 12.
I think I messed up quoting. I had intended to respond to GottaBurnEmAll. Sorry about that. Furthermore, I did not intend to disparage you in any way and the not celebrating part was directed at myself because, although I was technically in the healthy range, I was carrying way too much fat.
3 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
I have a 29" waist and have to wear a 12 to fit quads and glutes, and height. It sucks. My go to brand is now Forever 21 ultra distressed boyfriend cut (100% demin), sized by inches, slightly loose on the thighs and distressed so I have even more room there. Sometimes I wish it were acceptable to just wear a bedsheet.
I thought you went with 501's and shrank them? Which is it?
Also, what is 100% denim? No such thing. Denim is a specific weave and can be made out of any fiber.5 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »GemstoneofHeart wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Even if we take manufacturers out of the equation, why is it not okay for two hypothetical women who are the exact same shape and height to have different preferences? What makes size 12 not okay, bar health problems? Few are obese at that size.
It's okay to have preferences, but I can tell you that very short women are usually obese at a size 12. I know I was, I know my sister is currently.
Agree. I'm now a size 12 (previously a 16/18) and my BMI is still a 30.2. I'm 5'6 so I'm not short at all.
When I started out, I wore a 12. I'm 5'4" and weighed 145lbs which is just shy of overweight. I was carrying about 30% BF though so skinny fat at best. It is possible but not common and not really anything to celebrate.
Oh, I wasn't celebrating it at all. My point was that I am tallish and a size 12 and I'm still considered obese. The PP said that 12 would be considered obese on someone short. It's still obese on me too, someone average/tall. Not many women will be at a "healthy" BMI at a size 12.
I think I messed up quoting. I had intended to respond to GottaBurnEmAll. Sorry about that. Furthermore, I did not intend to disparage you in any way and the not celebrating part was directed at myself because, although I was technically in the healthy range, I was carrying way too much fat.
No worries!!!0 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
Although high waisted styles are starting to be in fashion more these days, most jeans don't actually sit at someone's waist. That 34.5 is probably several inches below a woman's natural waist. Again, using size '12' as a metric for Healthy across the board is ridiculous.2 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
Although high waisted styles are starting to be in fashion more these days, most jeans don't actually sit at someone's waist. That 34.5 is probably several inches below a woman's natural waist. Again, using size '12' as a metric for Healthy across the board is ridiculous.
Exactly.
Best way to measure health is by:
1. Your doctor:, blood work, analysis, general health, body fat%, lean muscle mass, etc
2. What you can do. Jog 1 mile, run up a few flight of stairs without being winded, basic cardio health with some muscle tone. Can you carry 50lbs 100".
Sizes, especially women's sizes are too vague considering that we come in so many different shapes. Even people in rediculously great shape (elite athletes - Olympic gymnasts, volleyball players, rowers) come in a huge variety of shapes and they are pretty much super women when it comes to being in shape and healthy.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions