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?
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.
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.
Just a ridiculous as using a size 12 as a metric for fat across the board.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.
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.
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.1 -
After posting in the forums for a bit, I have realized that my viewpoints really seems to go against the grain and cause great debate (not exactly sure why since I'm not forcing anyone to follow my opinions.)
My opinions have been formed by talking to people (some of whom are in the medical field and science related fields), reading books, reading scientific studies, personal effects from eating or eliminating foods, and drawing my own conclusions.
Things I believe:
1. Weightloss should be more than just lowering the number on the scale...it should be about health and nutrition. CICO works to drop pounds, but nutrition needs to be a main focus.
2. Not all calories are created equal. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways which affects fat, blood sugar etc in the body. The body metabolizes HFCS differently than it does an apple (yet both contain fructose).
3. Fiber is generally lacking in the typical western diet. Ultra processed foods are commonly eaten, many (not all) of which lack fiber and are high in salt and sugar.
4. Artificial sweeteners are not healthy and the long term effects have yet to be fully discovered and understood. I will never consume them. Those that feel they are safe are 100% free to do so (I will not stop you or comment). Though In 30 years I hope it turns out you were right all along...for your sake.
5. GMO food is harmful. The long term health effects of GMO are unknown. There has to be a reason why so many counties have banned them, unlike the US.
6. Added Sugar over consumed in the western diet. It seems like everything packaged has added sugar. I think reducing added sugar will increase health and decrease weight.
7. I believe there is a direct correlation between food additives, chemicals, and hormones and the increase in diseases, and food allergies, especially in children.
8. There are many ways to be healthier and lose weight. Reduce sugar? Yes. Go plant based? Yes. Low carb? Yes. CICO? Yes (yes to health if most foods are nutritious)...point being you have to find what works for you and something you can stick with long term.
9. Health and nutrition is a lifestyle change. Yoyo dieing works temporarily, but hard to maintain long term.
10. People have different viewpoints on health, fitness, nutrition and healthy/unhealthy foods. Terminology is not always universal. Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't mean they are wrong. It's ok to have a different opinion...you don't need to always prove yourself to be correct and them wrong. Gets very tiring constantly having to defend every single opinion and thought you may have.32 -
After posting in the forums for a bit, I have realized that my viewpoints really seems to go against the grain and cause great debate (not exactly sure why since I'm not forcing anyone to follow my opinions.)
My opinions have been formed by talking to people (some of whom are in the medical field and science related fields), reading books, reading scientific studies, personal effects from eating or eliminating foods, and drawing my own conclusions.
Things I believe:
1. Weightloss should be more than just lowering the number on the scale...it should be about health and nutrition. CICO works to drop pounds, but nutrition needs to be a main focus.
2. Not all calories are created equal. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways which affects fat, blood sugar etc in the body. The body metabolizes HFCS differently than it does an apple (yet both contain fructose).
3. Fiber is generally lacking in the typical western diet. Ultra processed foods are commonly eaten, many (not all) of which lack fiber and are high in salt and sugar.
4. Artificial sweeteners are not healthy and the long term effects have yet to be fully discovered and understood. I will never consume them. Those that feel they are safe are 100% free to do so (I will not stop you or comment). Though In 30 years I hope it turns out you were right all along...for your sake.
5. GMO food is harmful. The long term health effects of GMO are unknown. There has to be a reason why so many counties have banned them, unlike the US.
6. Added Sugar over consumed in the western diet. It seems like everything packaged has added sugar. I think reducing added sugar will increase health and decrease weight.
7. I believe there is a direct correlation between food additives, chemicals, and hormones and the increase in diseases, and food allergies, especially in children.
8. There are many ways to be healthier and lose weight. Reduce sugar? Yes. Go plant based? Yes. Low carb? Yes. CICO? Yes (yes to health if most foods are nutritious)...point being you have to find what works for you and something you can stick with long term.
9. Health and nutrition is a lifestyle change. Yoyo dieing works temporarily, but hard to maintain long term.
10. People have different viewpoints on health, fitness, nutrition and healthy/unhealthy foods. Terminology is not always universal. Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't mean they are wrong. It's ok to have a different opinion...you don't need to always prove yourself to be correct and them wrong. Gets very tiring constantly having to defend every single opinion and thought you may have.
Not going to waste the time to address every point, but your biggest problem in #2 specifically is that you're conflating energy balance with nutrition. A calorie is a unit of energy, just like a mile is a measure of distance. One mile is one mile whether it's uphill, downhill, on a paved freeway or a craggy, narrow mountain trail. We can talk about the elevation profile of that one mile stretch, how easy or difficult it is to traverse, how quickly or slowly it can be traveled, even whether we travel it on foot, by car, on a bicycle, or crawling on our knees. We can talk about whether that one mile traverses the middle of a 115F degree desert or crosses the Arctic tundra in a whiteout blizzard at -60F degrees. None of that changes the fact that one mile is one mile.
If you eat 1000 calories of food, 1000 calories is 1000 calories. Period. In terms of energy balance, it's 1000 calories (minus TEF, if we're going to be pedantic). In terms of weight gain/loss/maintenance, 1000 calories of anything is, for all intents and purposes, identical. Now if we're going to talk about the macro/micronutrients contained in those calories, substrate utilization, any possible physiological pathologies influencing absorption, the effect upon general health, body composition, workout performance, energy levels, satiety, etc., we're not talking about calories anymore - just as we're not talking about one mile being one mile anymore when we start talking about how it's more difficult/strenuous to travel a mile on foot uphill in deep snow than it is to drive one mile in a car on an open highway with the air conditioning on.
Most knowledgeable, educated, rational people here (of which there are many) have stated ad nauseum in thread after thread after thread that speaking purely in terms of weight loss, calories are all that matter. When nutrition, overall health, body composition, workout performance, energy levels, satiety/adherence, etc. come into the picture, nutrition matters. Nobody is disputing that. But it's disingenuous and completely incorrect to say that "not all calories are created equal" or "a calorie isn't a calorie". Because when you start talking about macro and micronutrients, you're not talking about calories/energy balance any more.30 -
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
2 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »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.
It's funny, how in another thread you just found out about this trick yesterday and said you were going to try it.
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/40263621/#Comment_402636219 -
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: 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...4 -
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.
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.2 -
I feel like I'm responding to a bunch of your posts. I hope you don't take this negatively -- I guess I feel like I see a misunderstanding or something that can be explained to a newer poster and want to explain.After posting in the forums for a bit, I have realized that my viewpoints really seems to go against the grain and cause great debate (not exactly sure why since I'm not forcing anyone to follow my opinions.)
My opinions have been formed by talking to people (some of whom are in the medical field and science related fields), reading books, reading scientific studies, personal effects from eating or eliminating foods, and drawing my own conclusions.
Things I believe:
1. Weightloss should be more than just lowering the number on the scale...it should be about health and nutrition. CICO works to drop pounds, but nutrition needs to be a main focus.
Hmm. I personally believe this, I think most people believe this (most people I interact with on MFP eat healthfully). BUT, when talking to someone who needs to lose weight -- and just losing weight is good for health -- I am aware that different things work for different people and often the idea that you have to change your diet is a stumbling block, and just as often people gradually improve their diets when losing (because when calories are lower, you have to use them more carefully). Thus, I would never tell someone they have to do it a specific way (if they ask about/talk about nutrition I will advise on nutrition). Surely you would not say that someone should not bother losing weight (for health or otherwise) if obese because they are not that interested in improving their nutrition?
Losing weight if one is obese is about the best thing one can do for health, even if one does not focus on nutrition.
Also, many of us ate nutrient-dense diets but too many calories BEFORE losing weight -- this idea that being fat means you weren't concerned with nutrition bugs me.3. Not all calories are created equal. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways which affects fat, blood sugar etc in the body. The body metabolizes HFCS differently than it does an apple (yet both contain fructose).
Calories are equal for energy balance purposes BUT -- and this is often misunderstood, but I don't understand why -- that OBVIOUSLY does not mean that all foods are the same. You still need a nutrient-sufficient diet for health, will likely find some foods more sating than others, need protein and essential fats, etc.
You can't reasonably compare HFCS and an apple, because no one eats HFCS alone. You CAN compare a bit of HFCS added to rhubarb in a sauce (although who would do that) vs. an apple, and you can compare a cookie with HFCS and one with sugar. They are not going to be metabolized differently. (HFCS is about 55% fructose, sucrose is 50% fructose, I'd have to look up the stats for apple sugar, but you can't compare sugar to a food.)3. Fiber is generally lacking in the typical western diet. Ultra processed foods are commonly eaten, many (not all) of which lack fiber and are high in salt and sugar.
True, I don't think anyone disagrees, but what does this mean to an individual who may well consume plenty of fiber (or have a specific reason for not doing so).
Non "ultra processed" foods also may be low in fiber, of course. At breakfast I had a variety of foods including eggs and cottage cheese, both low in fiber but good for other reasons. (The cottage cheese is likely high in sodium.)4. Artificial sweeteners are not healthy and the long term effects have yet to be fully discovered and understood. I will never consume them. Those that feel they are safe are 100% free to do so (I will not stop you or comment). Though In 30 years I hope it turns out you were right all along...for your sake.
Okay. On this one I think we just disagree, and it's not something I'm that interested in. (I'm good with disagreement, I feel compelled to jump in more when something thinks there's a disagreement that does not exist.)5. GMO food is harmful. The long term health effects of GMO are unknown. There has to be a reason why so many counties have banned them, unlike the US.
I disagree with this too. There are some good GMO discussion threads if you are interested in restarting this topic.6. Added Sugar over consumed in the western diet. It seems like everything packaged has added sugar. I think reducing added sugar will increase health and decrease weight.
I agree with the WHO on this: yes, added sugar is on average overconsumed (I never really ate a lot of it, though), and again ON AVERAGE reducing it would likely result in people consuming fewer calories and losing weight although I am less certain of that because there are a LOT of snack foods that are easy to consume and other easy high cal foods that don't contain it.
I would totally disagree that everything packaged has added sugar. It's easy to find dairy products that do not, dried pasta does not, packaged greens do not, frozen veg and fruit, etc. I think the obsession with "hidden sugar" (which isn't) is that people want to pretend like they accidentally consumed lots of calories/sugar when in fact the vast majority of added sugar in the US diet is from obvious sources.7. I believe there is a direct correlation between food additives, chemicals, and hormones and the increase in diseases, and food allergies, especially in children.
What specific ones? I have different theories about this, personally.8. There are many ways to be healthier and lose weight. Reduce sugar? Yes. Go plant based? Yes. Low carb? Yes. CICO? Yes (yes to health if most foods are nutritious)...point being you have to find what works for you and something you can stick with long term.
Totally agree except that CICO is not a kind of diet, it's how all weight loss, gain, maintenance works, the principle that underlies all. But of course you have to find what works for you and it's individual. I don't think that's an unpopular idea at all.9. Health and nutrition is a lifestyle change. Yoyo dieing works temporarily, but hard to maintain long term.
But I am healthy and a healthy weight and have a active lifestyle. Why do I need a lifestyle change to lose?
And again, when I was fat, I ate healthful homecooked foods, just too much (and I snacked as a response to stress). I did change my lifestyle by getting active again (although I've had some injuries and had to adjust temporarily). I started watching how much I ate and working on emotional eating and gave up snacking, but those are NOT lifestyle changes. Does that mean I cannot be successful?
Again, I find the assumption that all fat people don't care about nutrition and the like to be rather insulting.10. People have different viewpoints on health, fitness, nutrition and healthy/unhealthy foods. Terminology is not always universal. Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't mean they are wrong. It's ok to have a different opinion...you don't need to always prove yourself to be correct and them wrong. Gets very tiring constantly having to defend every single opinion and thought you may have.
We all know this. Discussion is not an attack.
There is no general agreement on what a healthy diet is, btw -- that someone has a different diet than you would recommend (for example the LCHF people, perhaps) doesn't mean they aren't also concerned with health. Indeed, even if someone says "making too many changes at once is hard for me, I'm just going to worry about calories right now" doesn't mean they don't care about health.
AND, and this relates to our prior discussion, I think -- that someone says "I don't care for the notion of eating clean and I think that some processed foods are helpful for me" that DOES NOT mean they are less healthy or less concerned about health. They may (reasonably) think the foods they are eating are fine or have figured out a good balance for them that also adds to quality of life, lack of stress, whatever.
That someone loudly asserts what a clean eater they are almost never means they have a healthier diet than the average person here, IME. So I wonder what the point is.24 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I feel like I'm responding to a bunch of your posts. I hope you don't take this negatively -- I guess I feel like I see a misunderstanding or something that can be explained to a newer poster and want to explain.After posting in the forums for a bit, I have realized that my viewpoints really seems to go against the grain and cause great debate (not exactly sure why since I'm not forcing anyone to follow my opinions.)
My opinions have been formed by talking to people (some of whom are in the medical field and science related fields), reading books, reading scientific studies, personal effects from eating or eliminating foods, and drawing my own conclusions.
Things I believe:
1. Weightloss should be more than just lowering the number on the scale...it should be about health and nutrition. CICO works to drop pounds, but nutrition needs to be a main focus.
Hmm. I personally believe this, I think most people believe this (most people I interact with on MFP eat healthfully). BUT, when talking to someone who needs to lose weight -- and just losing weight is good for health -- I am aware that different things work for different people and often the idea that you have to change your diet is a stumbling block, and just as often people gradually improve their diets when losing (because when calories are lower, you have to use them more carefully). Thus, I would never tell someone they have to do it a specific way (if they ask about/talk about nutrition I will advise on nutrition). Surely you would not say that someone should not bother losing weight (for health or otherwise) if obese because they are not that interested in improving their nutrition?
Losing weight if one is obese is about the best thing one can do for health, even if one does not focus on nutrition.
Also, many of us ate nutrient-dense diets but too many calories BEFORE losing weight -- this idea that being fat means you weren't concerned with nutrition bugs me.3. Not all calories are created equal. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways which affects fat, blood sugar etc in the body. The body metabolizes HFCS differently than it does an apple (yet both contain fructose).
Calories are equal for energy balance purposes BUT -- and this is often misunderstood, but I don't understand why -- that OBVIOUSLY does not mean that all foods are the same. You still need a nutrient-sufficient diet for health, will likely find some foods more sating than others, need protein and essential fats, etc.
You can't reasonably compare HFCS and an apple, because no one eats HFCS alone. You CAN compare a bit of HFCS added to rhubarb in a sauce (although who would do that) vs. an apple, and you can compare a cookie with HFCS and one with sugar. They are not going to be metabolized differently. (HFCS is about 55% fructose, sucrose is 50% fructose, I'd have to look up the stats for apple sugar, but you can't compare sugar to a food.)3. Fiber is generally lacking in the typical western diet. Ultra processed foods are commonly eaten, many (not all) of which lack fiber and are high in salt and sugar.
True, I don't think anyone disagrees, but what does this mean to an individual who may well consume plenty of fiber (or have a specific reason for not doing so).
Non "ultra processed" foods also may be low in fiber, of course. At breakfast I had a variety of foods including eggs and cottage cheese, both low in fiber but good for other reasons. (The cottage cheese is likely high in sodium.)4. Artificial sweeteners are not healthy and the long term effects have yet to be fully discovered and understood. I will never consume them. Those that feel they are safe are 100% free to do so (I will not stop you or comment). Though In 30 years I hope it turns out you were right all along...for your sake.
Okay. On this one I think we just disagree, and it's not something I'm that interested in. (I'm good with disagreement, I feel compelled to jump in more when something thinks there's a disagreement that does not exist.)5. GMO food is harmful. The long term health effects of GMO are unknown. There has to be a reason why so many counties have banned them, unlike the US.
I disagree with this too. There are some good GMO discussion threads if you are interested in restarting this topic.6. Added Sugar over consumed in the western diet. It seems like everything packaged has added sugar. I think reducing added sugar will increase health and decrease weight.
I agree with the WHO on this: yes, added sugar is on average overconsumed (I never really ate a lot of it, though), and again ON AVERAGE reducing it would likely result in people consuming fewer calories and losing weight although I am less certain of that because there are a LOT of snack foods that are easy to consume and other easy high cal foods that don't contain it.
I would totally disagree that everything packaged has added sugar. It's easy to find dairy products that do not, dried pasta does not, packaged greens do not, frozen veg and fruit, etc. I think the obsession with "hidden sugar" (which isn't) is that people want to pretend like they accidentally consumed lots of calories/sugar when in fact the vast majority of added sugar in the US diet is from obvious sources.7. I believe there is a direct correlation between food additives, chemicals, and hormones and the increase in diseases, and food allergies, especially in children.
What specific ones? I have different theories about this, personally.8. There are many ways to be healthier and lose weight. Reduce sugar? Yes. Go plant based? Yes. Low carb? Yes. CICO? Yes (yes to health if most foods are nutritious)...point being you have to find what works for you and something you can stick with long term.
Totally agree except that CICO is not a kind of diet, it's how all weight loss, gain, maintenance works, the principle that underlies all. But of course you have to find what works for you and it's individual. I don't think that's an unpopular idea at all.9. Health and nutrition is a lifestyle change. Yoyo dieing works temporarily, but hard to maintain long term.
But I am healthy and a healthy weight and have a active lifestyle. Why do I need a lifestyle change to lose?
And again, when I was fat, I ate healthful homecooked foods, just too much (and I snacked as a response to stress). I did change my lifestyle by getting active again (although I've had some injuries and had to adjust temporarily). I started watching how much I ate and working on emotional eating and gave up snacking, but those are NOT lifestyle changes. Does that mean I cannot be successful?
Again, I find the assumption that all fat people don't care about nutrition and the like to be rather insulting.10. People have different viewpoints on health, fitness, nutrition and healthy/unhealthy foods. Terminology is not always universal. Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't mean they are wrong. It's ok to have a different opinion...you don't need to always prove yourself to be correct and them wrong. Gets very tiring constantly having to defend every single opinion and thought you may have.
We all know this. Discussion is not an attack.
There is no general agreement on what a healthy diet is, btw -- that someone has a different diet than you would recommend (for example the LCHF people, perhaps) doesn't mean they aren't also concerned with health. Indeed, even if someone says "making too many changes at once is hard for me, I'm just going to worry about calories right now" doesn't mean they don't care about health.
AND, and this relates to our prior discussion, I think -- that someone says "I don't care for the notion of eating clean and I think that some processed foods are helpful for me" that DOES NOT mean they are less healthy or less concerned about health. They may (reasonably) think the foods they are eating are fine or have figured out a good balance for them that also adds to quality of life, lack of stress, whatever.
That someone loudly asserts what a clean eater they are almost never means they have a healthier diet than the average person here, IME. So I wonder what the point is.
Seriously, I
you. 6 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
5 -
My unpopular opinion is that society has gone way too far to accommodate the overweight/obese. I think that HAES and other fat acceptance related groups are just contributing to making the problem worse. If two thirds of the population smoked, that wouldn't make it ok to normalize smoking. That wouldn't make it right to have a group called Healthy at Every Nicotine Level(especially since HAENL is a crappy anagram).
The whole "love yourself no matter the size" argument doesn't hold up in my book either because I have never seen someone say another person is unworthy of love because they are fat. Anyone who would say that is a hateful jerk that I am positive would hate on other people for other ridiculous reasons as well. I was in a casino in Vegas recently and was completely run off of my path by three obese individuals in motorized scooters, one right next to the other who apparently had more of a right to the wide hallway we were in than I did. I just politely moved and said nothing because if I were to say something I am immediately labeled a fat-shamer. To that point, I also believe that people throw out the term fat-shaming far too often. Just because someone did something that alluded to your weight does not mean they were shaming you.
I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion on MFP, but I think generally in society it is. The people on this site and especially in the forums seem to be interested in improving or maintaining their overall health which is great, but even here there seems to be some resistance to the idea that being healthy means not being overweight or obese. A smoker could argue they are healthy and point to blood work and tests as proof of that, but in the long run, the odds are it will catch up to them somehow.13 -
5
-
5
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Every time someone says CICO isn't the whole story, I'd be willing to be that they've read or heard the words "a calorie isn't a calorie" somewhere.
Of course it's simplifying things to say that CICO is the whole story somewhat (obesity is a complex issue), but frankly, when it comes to losing weight, creating a calorie deficit is what matters.
Obfuscating and conflating that primary truth with bullet point issues which are secondary to it confuses people and does most dieters a disservice. I really don't understand why people cling to such a disorganized way of thinking about this.
There are ways of prioritizing the variables involved in this process without making meaningless statements about how the process works.
@livingleanlivingclean5 -
joemac1988 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Every time someone says CICO isn't the whole story, I'd be willing to be that they've read or heard the words "a calorie isn't a calorie" somewhere.
Of course it's simplifying things to say that CICO is the whole story somewhat (obesity is a complex issue), but frankly, when it comes to losing weight, creating a calorie deficit is what matters.
Obfuscating and conflating that primary truth with bullet point issues which are secondary to it confuses people and does most dieters a disservice. I really don't understand why people cling to such a disorganized way of thinking about this.
There are ways of prioritizing the variables involved in this process without making meaningless statements about how the process works.
@livingleanlivingclean
@joemac1988 where is the reference to health? This is stating CICO is all that matters for weight loss.4 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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 14.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Every time someone says CICO isn't the whole story, I'd be willing to be that they've read or heard the words "a calorie isn't a calorie" somewhere.
Of course it's simplifying things to say that CICO is the whole story somewhat (obesity is a complex issue), but frankly, when it comes to losing weight, creating a calorie deficit is what matters.
Obfuscating and conflating that primary truth with bullet point issues which are secondary to it confuses people and does most dieters a disservice. I really don't understand why people cling to such a disorganized way of thinking about this.
There are ways of prioritizing the variables involved in this process without making meaningless statements about how the process works.
@livingleanlivingclean
@joemac1988 where is the reference to health? This is stating CICO is all that matters for weight loss.
I think my post in particular was quite clear in saying that obesity was a complex issue and that nutrition should not be conflated with calorie counting. I'm scratching my head.6 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
Very interesting. TIL that I'm a standard sized 10. Except in the bust. I'm between a 14 and 16 there.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Every time someone says CICO isn't the whole story, I'd be willing to be that they've read or heard the words "a calorie isn't a calorie" somewhere.
Of course it's simplifying things to say that CICO is the whole story somewhat (obesity is a complex issue), but frankly, when it comes to losing weight, creating a calorie deficit is what matters.
Obfuscating and conflating that primary truth with bullet point issues which are secondary to it confuses people and does most dieters a disservice. I really don't understand why people cling to such a disorganized way of thinking about this.
There are ways of prioritizing the variables involved in this process without making meaningless statements about how the process works.
@livingleanlivingclean
@joemac1988 where is the reference to health? This is stating CICO is all that matters for weight loss.
I think my post in particular was quite clear in saying that obesity was a complex issue and that nutrition should not be conflated with calorie counting. I'm scratching my head.
He's just trying to (unsuccessfully) prove a point.9 -
joemac1988 wrote: »
I'll quote myself...
"People's ignorance about how and why CICO works, does not stop it from working..."
–Moi...11 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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....0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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.
Wasn't it something ridiculous like 100 middle-class younger white women that they used as the standard?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.
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
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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.
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...
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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).2 -
Nothing to do with health, and everything to do with people's hang-ups about what size they are: I believe no one can read the tags while you are wearing the clothes, so who cares what size# they are? Get something that fits properly and is flattering and you will look ten times better than buying a smaller size just because you are stubborn.19
-
And a good thing too. If you want to be actually able to buy clothes.amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »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
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
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.
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.
2 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population. 8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions