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.
We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1118119121123124239

Replies

  • Posts: 8,171 Member
    DamieBird wrote: »

    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.

    Just a ridiculous as using a size 12 as a metric for fat across the board.
  • Posts: 1,116 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    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.

    I did, I shrank the 501's in super hot water, as hot as I could stand. My go to brand that I don't have to mess with are the Forever 21 jeans (and they are a lot cheaper than Levi's)

    I meant 100% cotton.
  • Posts: 1,213 Member
    edited August 2017
    Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?

    Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.

    In the UK:

    1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers

    2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028

    3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/

    4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect

    5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
  • Posts: 15,267 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    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: typos

    I agree "generic" sizing charts are a daydream.

    No not in the US but close enough I can shop there at will.

    I get that you cannot say a woman who "wears" a size 12 is not healthy...but at the same time knowing that a size 14-16 is average for my age/ethnicity is a weight of 180...(caucasian/45)

    So I do feel that on average that a person who is a size 12 is not as healthy as someone in a size 8 as far as weight related health issues go.

    we will have to agree to disagree however...partially because speaking of outliers when we were talking averages throws a curve ball into it...

    so again I assert and agree that being "averaged size" be it 12 or 14 or 16 is not on average a good thing....because it means you are probably overweight leaning towards obesity...

    I was average for a long time...
  • Posts: 15,267 Member
    DamieBird wrote: »

    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.

    nope actually if you google how to measure for pants it indicates to measure at natural waist...not below the belly button...so the 34.5 is the natural waist.

    I don't think on average that a woman who is a size 12 is as healthy as they could be and are probably considered overweight...I know what I looked like at a size 12 and I am taller than average...I was soft squishy and fat.
  • Posts: 11,751 Member
    joemac1988 wrote: »

    @livingleanlivingclean

    @joemac1988 where is the reference to health? This is stating CICO is all that matters for weight loss.
  • Posts: 10,330 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:

    uayh9p8vqtog.jpg

    This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.

    8fr6l78psvx4.jpg

    That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
  • Posts: 7,722 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:

    uayh9p8vqtog.jpg

    This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.

    8fr6l78psvx4.jpg

    Very interesting. TIL that I'm a standard sized 10. Except in the bust. I'm between a 14 and 16 there.
  • Posts: 7,492 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:

    uayh9p8vqtog.jpg

    This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.

    8fr6l78psvx4.jpg

    Very interesting. I wear a 00/0 but according to this I am a size 14 via waist measurement but below the smallest size for hip. Gosh I am weirdly proportioned....
  • Posts: 8,171 Member

    That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.

    And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
  • Posts: 1,650 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.

    Wasn't it something ridiculous like 100 middle-class younger white women that they used as the standard?
  • Posts: 651 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    Just a ridiculous as using a size 12 as a metric for fat across the board.

    That is the point I was trying to make :smiley:
  • Posts: 15,267 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.

    and I guess this is my point...the average woman is now a 14-16...so that means in today's sizes...

    so a size 12 60 years ago was really a 16 or higher...

  • Posts: 3,563 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »

    This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:

    uayh9p8vqtog.jpg

    This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.

    8fr6l78psvx4.jpg

    Yes, according to the chart I'm 16 by waist, 14 by hips (2 1/2" difference between hips and waist - I'm tube-shaped from my ribs down.) I don't even try to buy pants that fit around my waist, and in real life wear a 6-8 in mid-rise jeans. (In the Talbot's alternate universe I wear a size 0 - 2).
  • Posts: 1,213 Member
    edited August 2017
    earlnabby wrote: »

    And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
    And a good thing too. If you want to be actually able to buy clothes.

    It's one thing for dressmaking patterns to have a specific set of measurements; if you're choosing to make your own clothes, you're probably able to adjust the bust or hips in or out to fit yourself

    If you're a store selling clothes, you want to sell them to fit the shoppers, and the shoppers are not all going to magically have the body shape with the much lauded ten inch difference twix waist and hip that used to be taught as fricking holy gospel in sewing.

    If you're a customer who wants to buy clothes, who can't sew, universal standardisation across stores would either see you able to buy everywhere, or... nowhere.

    Government regulation on clothing sizes would be very restrictive here.

This discussion has been closed.