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
-
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.
Mainly fatter;
Overall weight gain since 1960 is slightly greater for women (18.5 percent) than for men (17.6 percent). And both sexes have gained roughly an inch in height over the same period, which accounts for some of that weight gain.
But story is mostly one of growing girth, and it basically boils down to three factors: we're eating less healthy food, we're eating more of it, and we're not moving around as much. According to a study published in 2012 in the journal BMC Public Health, Americans are now the world's third-heaviest people, behind only the Pacific island nations of Tonga and Micronesia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/?utm_term=.db49484ae5a62 -
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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.5 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
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.
I don't think you understand what the size standards mean. These are the physical measurements of the person the garment is made to fit, NOT the actual measurements of the garment. Ease, style, and proportion are built into the garment during design and manufacture which is what allows for variations in actual women.
0 -
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.....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.
I will say that as a severely obese person who has been such pretty much my whole life, while people may not SAY I'm unworthy of love to my face, the concept is there, everywhere I look and has been drilled into me since I was a child. You see it in the joke cards section of Hallmark, you hear it in the comedy routines of the standups, you see it displayed in movies and television, you see it in books and magazines, video games.....The heroine is always young, is always skinny, beautiful, etc, the hero is always handsome, well built, we could go on and on. The only time you see a larger person as the lead, they're always shown as being somewhat dorky, nerdy, and stumbling into the situation - and it's usually a comedy.
And the constant mantra of "fat isn't healthy" doesn't help. An honest obese person knows that their extra weight increases their risks of damaging their health- we don't need that constantly thrown up in our faces. I've seen several videos and articles by larger folks talking about learning to accept themselves - accept that their weight doesn't define who they are as a person, and I will definitely say, again as an obese person myself - that the comments below such vidoes and articles are always disheartening, because they will almost always to a person critically assert that the speaker/writer shouldn't accept themselves because they are obese, and being obese is unhealthy. That constant mantra says to me "I am not acceptable as a person in society because I am not healthy" and that is a major stumbling block that I have to deal with, because I very much struggle with self image and detesting the person I am based upon my body weight - and that's because I was trained to do so from childhood.
I'm not a member of the fat acceptance movement and I think it's ridiculous to shame other people because they are skinny or to expect everyone out there to embrace you, and I know that my weight lowers the quality of life I have and increases the RISK of future health problems - and that's a large reason why I'm here attempting to lose the extra weight again. BUT that's the point - its the RISK factor that is increased; its not guaranteed that every single person who is obese or overweight will go on to develop diabetes, heart problems, etc. Just like there are some smokers out there that will never develop lung cancer even though they smoked 4 packs a day for 50 years. You CAN be obese and have healthy bloodwork numbers - I'm proof of that and have had no problems whatsover in 30 years - but the chances of it staying that way diminish with your size and age. However, there are some folks who do live their lives obese and have relatively few problems. It's all statistics, averages, and probability - it's not a guarantee, though the higher your risk, the more likely the odds are going to be against you. The changes of winning the power ball are 1 in 175 million. Does that mean that no one ever wins? of course not. If a person remains obese does that guarantee they are going to suffer from diabetes or have a heart attack or stroke? No, it does not guarantee it, though the odds of course go up and are stacked against them the heavier they are. And yes, I also acknowledge that there is a point where it becomes a statistical certainty - it's just that point isn't anywhere near where most people are these days.
It's it a good idea to carry around extra pounds? No, and I'm not saying that. Of course folks who are extremely overweight should consider losing that weight, even if their health numbers are normal, because the odds of them developing serious medical problems will go down. Their joints will thank them for it at the least, and being at a normal weight does make life easier. But I also know, as an obese person, that it's not easy, my body fights against me, and the odds of success are absolutely in the tank. So even though the chances I'll succeed are only around 5%, I'm still willing to try. But if my doctor can celebrate even a modest loss of weight in the right direction, shouldn't I also be able to celebrate that and consider it a success, even if I never get down to a "healthy" BMI or waist measurement?
And besides, the fact that no one can disagree with is whether your are healthy or unhealthy, underweight, normal, overweight, or obese, we are all going to die eventually - the risk for that is 100%.....10 -
Au contraire, mon amie.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
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.
I don't think you understand what the size standards mean. These are the physical measurements of the person the garment is made to fit, NOT the actual measurements of the garment. Ease, style, and proportion are built into the garment during design and manufacture which is what allows for variations in actual women. I know exactly what the size standards mean, and that is my point. If manufacturers were legally required to cut clothes to fit women of those measurements, many women would be left with nowhere to shop. Women, as a national population, vary a lot in shape. I recognise the measurements pictured- they're, as mentioned, ye olde Women have Ten Inches Difference Between Hip and Waist ones. Really does not universally apply to the modern western woman, if it ever did.
P.S. I knit, crochet, sew and cross-stitch.
4 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »And the constant mantra of "fat isn't healthy" doesn't help. An honest obese person knows that their extra weight increases their risks of damaging their health- we don't need that constantly thrown up in our faces. I've seen several videos and articles by larger folks talking about learning to accept themselves - accept that their weight doesn't define who they are as a person, and I will definitely say, again as an obese person myself - that the comments below such vidoes and articles are always disheartening, because they will almost always to a person critically assert that the speaker/writer shouldn't accept themselves because they are obese, and being obese is unhealthy. That constant mantra says to me "I am not acceptable as a person in society because I am not healthy" and that is a major stumbling block that I have to deal with, because I very much struggle with self image and detesting the person I am based upon my body weight - and that's because I was trained to do so from childhood.
This was my point. Healthy At Every Size simply is untrue. I am not saying that it needs to be thrown in people's faces every second of the day, but let's not pretend that it isn't an issue and try to normalize it. I brought up smoking because we don't try to normalize smoking. In fact the percentage of the population who smokes today is way down because efforts were taken to crack down on it, between banning it in public places, and taxing it, and repeatedly pointing out that it is detrimental to ones health. You pointed out that an obese person can potentially live without health issues, and although that is true, it is also true for a smoker. The point is both groups are at a far greater risk for health issues and I don't think we should just remain silent, or try to normalize it so we don't hurt people's feelings.0 -
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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.4 -
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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.
That makes sense, I didn't see the statement you were responding to, but understand you taking exception to it. I just know as a man, I wouldn't really have much of an idea, or to be honest care what a woman's dress size was. If you are healthy and feel confident and comfortable then it shouldn't really matter what size you wear.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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.
I don't remember anyone saying size 12 was obese...
I agree'd with the poster who said it wasn't healthy and it's scary that the average woman is now a size 12 (acutally 14-16) and people are okay with it...as an unpopular opinion. It's true that our society is getting okay with people being overweight to fat to obese...where is that line drawn?
But as a taller broader woman who thought I would always be in a size 8-12 but isn't I speak from experience.
I wasn't as healthy in my size 12 as I am now...my numbers were still high...they are not now.
I was still sore...I am not now
I was not dying...but I wasn't healthy.
But I agree as long as you are health size doesn't matter...
5 -
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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
The average woman is 5'4. On average (most likely) a 5'4 woman who is a size 12 is overweight. However, that does not mean that being a size 12 means you are overweight. A 5'10 woman, for example.
So plenty of people who are 12 are not overweight.
(This is like the silliest conversation ever. I don't get why people are invested in saying a particular dress size is inherently a sign of overweight or obesity when there are much more direct measures like height and weight.)10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
The average woman is 5'4. On average (most likely) a 5'4 woman who is a size 12 is overweight. However, that does not mean that being a size 12 means you are overweight. A 5'10 woman, for example.
So plenty of people who are 12 are not overweight.
(This is like the silliest conversation ever. I don't get why people are invested in saying a particular dress size is inherently a sign of overweight or obesity when there are much more direct measures like height and weight.)
This is literally the point I was trying to make in my post. I was pointing out by the original posters logic a size 12 would be considered overweight since they say the average woman is a size 12 and the average woman is overweight. This is why I ended my post by saying what really matters is being at a healthy weight.3 -
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.
I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.
That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.
Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.
It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.
9 -
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.
I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.
That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.
Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.
It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.
I just used some google-fu (a small amount, granted, as this is the first thing that came up, but it makes sense, in a way) and found: http://fashion-incubator.com/why-isnt-womens-clothing-sized-like-mens-pt-2/
I think - and I obviously could be wrong - that the main reason, per the article, is simply larger variances in certain dimensions:Many believe men have it easier because numbers are used to indicate their sizing. This is true and false but because is the operative word here. Men’s pants can be sold by numbers (waist and inseam) because the hip dimensions of men’s bodies (relative to waist size), is more easily predicted. It is because of their anatomy that numbers indicating hip measure is not needed to sell their pants.
This is not true for women. Women’s waist to hip difference can range from 12″ difference to the waist being several inches larger than the hips. So, the plea for women’s sizes to be sold like men’s is only similar if men’s pants were also sold by waist, inseam and hip. Since they are not, you can multiply the proverbial 99 sizes to get on the order of 300 sizes -duly noted are objections by Alison and others that makers aren’t required to produce all sizes.
Like I mentioned - not sure if that's it, but it seems to make sense.
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.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.
I was one of the people who said something about size 12 people and obesity and I was quite clear that I was only talking about short people. At least I hope I was.
FTR, I'm talking pretty short here. I'm 5'1" and my sister (who I also referenced) is even shorter than me. She thinks she's 5', but ... LOL... no. She's a lot shorter than me than just an inch.
I was just sharing that for the two of us, at size 12, I was (and she is) definitely obese.
Someone taller with a different frame size? Entirely different ball game, of course. And this is definitely why sizing is a poor metric for anything.4 -
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.
I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.
That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.
Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.
It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.
What always bugs me about the difference in women's and men's clothing is that men's clothing is made to be altered and alterations are much cheaper, if not included in the purchase price. Their pants have extra seam allowance in the places where they might need to be let out, same thing with jackets across the shoulders. Pants and sleeves are designed to have the length altered easily. Women's clothes have none of this. Women are expected to conform to a specific size and shape and nobody cares about you if you don't fit it. Men can be all kinds of different sizes and shapes. Alterations are much more difficult and expensive for women.
This is why I sew, and have for 40 years. I have broad shoulders and long arms and legs but a short torso. Women's clothing does not fit me comfortably.4 -
nothing wrong with booze. DRINK UP.6
-
Pretty sure that's a popular opinion.
7 -
My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.30 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
I disagree with ATG being the only way to squat, and many like Lyle McDonald, Thrall, Mehdi, etc. plus lifters here would as well. Many cannot squat ATG due to mobility issues and pain, not from bad form. Also, some don't have the hip structure to be able to ATG. I guess the trainers at anytime fitness recommend ATG?
*kitten*-to-grass isn't the only way to squat. It's really the crossfit way of thinking "ATG or GTFO". I've seen many who ATG with butt-wink/horrible form.19 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
How doesn't something that's not "Olympic qualify form" count?
Count for what, exactly?9 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
Yup this is not only unpopular its woo9 -
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.
Me! Actually I edged into healthy at 14. But I'm six-one Talk about having trouble finding clothes that fit... 8 -
Because of human mechanics, form can't be perfect if the loads are at maximum. So if we're talking Olympic form, many wouldn't hold records if they didn't stumble a bit on a clean and jerk or a squat with a slightly more forward lean than usual. So would should those records be discounted because of a small break in form?VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
I get what you're saying, but you shouldn't use the term "Olympic qualifying form" when the actual form breaks and the lift still counts. You should say "form that you see fit" doesn't count. Then it's subjective and applies to the actual thread.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.5 -
I ATG just because I can. Many of my clients can't and squat just fine. One thing I've learned over the years is that people aren't looking to be perfect at everything and that people think everything that has to be perfectly done to count have more flaws in their form than they think.cerise_noir wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
I disagree with ATG being the only way to squat, and many like Lyle McDonald, Thrall, Mehdi, etc. plus lifters here would as well. Many cannot squat ATG due to mobility issues and pain, not from bad form. Also, some don't have the hip structure to be able to ATG. I guess the trainers at anytime fitness recommend ATG?
*kitten*-to-grass isn't the only way to squat. It's really the crossfit way of thinking "ATG or GTFO". I've seen many who ATG with butt-wink/horrible form.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
10 -
Count for what?VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
It's one thing to think (you'd be beyond rude to say it, unsolicited) that it shouldn't count for the Squats [ ] entry on someone's personal life goals list, or that it should be to full depth before people can justifiably include it on their bio on okcupid, for example. Quite another thing to say that it doesn't count in terms of increased fitness and blah-di-blah, because obviously, it does.
10 -
Wait wait wait. Remember it's at a University being wired to electro cardiograms and indirect calorimeter for 2 hours no less. So there's got to be some sort of Olympic coach there watching the lift even with all that stuff in the way.VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Wait wait wait. Remember it's at a University being wired to electro cardiograms and indirect calorimeter for 2 hours no less. So there's got to be some sort of Olympic coach there watching the lift even with all that stuff in the way.VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But the avatar photo was taken at Anytime Fitness. That is why people are asking7 -
Apropos of this thread, it has just occurred to me that one of my unpopular opinions is that if I were single, I would be fine with people declaring any depth of squat they wanted in the Life Achievements section of their OKCupid bio. It would help me to screen them out of my dating pool more efficiently.
Actually, do the kidz ever use okcupid any more? Is it all about Tinder now? Plentyoffish.com?11 -
Oh it's gotta be just a pic taken there. We've been informed that she ONLY works out at the University under some sort of grant. I still have yet to know which University actually does this for people who aren't athletes in their programs though. Wished she'd tell me which because I've contacted 5 of them so far in Texas and no go.
Wait wait wait. Remember it's at a University being wired to electro cardiograms and indirect calorimeter for 2 hours no less. So there's got to be some sort of Olympic coach there watching the lift even with all that stuff in the way.VeronicaA76 wrote: »My unpopular opinion:
When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.
Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
What are your qualifications to be an expert in olympic style squat form. Are there trainers that teach that at the Anytime Fitness where you go? I used to go to one and there were no olympic trainers there but i know they vary from location to location. Olympic lifts are a specialized field though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But the avatar photo was taken at Anytime Fitness. That is why people are asking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 15
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