Unexpected downsides of losing weight

1456810

Replies

  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    82EC wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    I guess it depends on the person- for me plus size is closer to the facts whereas vanity sizing carries a negative connotation because nobody aspires to be vain.

    The manufacturers aren't saying "here are some vanity sizes" and expecting people to go, oh that's me, and buy a thing. It's a name applied to something they gradually did over time that the average public didn't even know about, because they sold more items labeled size 4 to size 8 people, because those people were delighted to see they fit into a size 4 all of a sudden - describing that as practice as vanity sizing is clear and appropriate. It has NOTHING to do with what range of sizes are available. If you keep insisting that calling it weird because who would aspire to that, you're still missing the point.

    I have to say I’m bitterly disappointed by the reaction to my posts on vanity sizing in here. I would have thought if anyone would understand what it’s like to be out of the normal size range and feel vilified for it, it would be people on here. I mean really, everyone on here has felt the need to lose weight and become a smaller size, that’s why we’re on here. I was just advocating being kind to others who haven’t lost that weight yet and the reaction to my comments really amazes me. Very sad.

    I am sorry that you are bitterly disappointed by the reaction here but the problem is that we don't understand. I know the term vanity sizing upsets you but I really don't see why, unless you do not comprehend its meaning. Being plus-sized and vanity sizing are two totally different things. I do not feel vilified because of the vanity sizing label and didn't when I was larger. In fact, I found vanity sizing to be the opposite. I much prefered buying a size 16-18, when in reality, 20 years ago that sizing would have been a 20-22 instead. It meant I could kid myself with how much weight I was actually putting on. Only now do I find it a problem. Being under 5 foot it means that it is very difficult to find clothes that fit without resorting to the children's/teen department. While manufacturers have made clothing sizes larger to accommodate our growing waistlines, they are no longer making them as small.

    Is it possible that you are confusing vanity sizing with those that talk of wanting to lose vanity pounds? Those that are a healthy weight but want to lose that little bit extra, for a body they much prefer the look of? This actually has nothing to do with vanity sizing.

    I have tried to explain why this term upsets me, sorry if it’s still not clear but I don’t know how else to explain it. I never said that plus-sized and vanity sizes were the same thing, and I explicitly said I did not mean by my comments that smaller people should not be able to get clothes. I don’t think I’m confusing vanity sizing with vanity pounds either, I’m aware of the difference there.

    I just don’t like the word “vanity” in vanity sizing because to me it implies that there is something wrong with manufacturers making clothing bigger at the same size to suit the population’s getting bigger, and puts people who need that down. I’d just rather we called it some else rather than vanity, because it’s not vanity to want clothes that fit.

    But it IS vanity to want the clothes that fit to have a certain size on the label. There IS a problem with wanting to lie to yourself that you haven’t got bigger because you can still fit into a size 10 - and for clothing manufacturers to go along with that.

    It also makes shopping in charity shops, or for vintage clothes, really frustrating. There is nothing good or useful about changing the meaning of ‘size 10’ over time.

    I don’t agree - I needed vanity sizing when I was really fat because that meant I could fit into the standard range. It wasn’t about kidding myself, I knew I had put on weight, and I didn’t care what size was on the label I just needed to be able to buy clothes that would do up. As I’ve said elsewhere I’m tall and plus size stores, at least here in Australia, do not cater to tall women, so I don’t think it was vanity to opt for a big size 16 that fitted instead of a non-existent size 18 or 20.

    Wow, you really are confusing the two different issues here.

    What on Earth makes you think that keeping the sizes consistent would mean that shops didn't stock clothes that fit you?

    Well quite simple really, I was so fat that I was too big for all of the stores except for the ones that used vanity sizing to make their size 16s bigger. Being tall means that I am in the middle of the size range even when I am extremely thin.

    How exactly does vanity sizing make it harder for you to buy clothes? If they are making clothes bigger than they have before this should make it easier.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    82EC wrote: »
    I guess it depends on the person- for me plus size is closer to the facts whereas vanity sizing carries a negative connotation because nobody aspires to be vain.

    The manufacturers aren't saying "here are some vanity sizes" and expecting people to go, oh that's me, and buy a thing. It's a name applied to something they gradually did over time that the average public didn't even know about, because they sold more items labeled size 4 to size 8 people, because those people were delighted to see they fit into a size 4 all of a sudden - describing that as practice as vanity sizing is clear and appropriate. It has NOTHING to do with what range of sizes are available. If you keep insisting that calling it weird because who would aspire to that, you're still missing the point.

    I have to say I’m bitterly disappointed by the reaction to my posts on vanity sizing in here. I would have thought if anyone would understand what it’s like to be out of the normal size range and feel vilified for it, it would be people on here. I mean really, everyone on here has felt the need to lose weight and become a smaller size, that’s why we’re on here. I was just advocating being kind to others who haven’t lost that weight yet and the reaction to my comments really amazes me. Very sad.

    I am sorry that you are bitterly disappointed by the reaction here but the problem is that we don't understand. I know the term vanity sizing upsets you but I really don't see why, unless you do not comprehend its meaning. Being plus-sized and vanity sizing are two totally different things. I do not feel vilified because of the vanity sizing label and didn't when I was larger. In fact, I found vanity sizing to be the opposite. I much prefered buying a size 16-18, when in reality, 20 years ago that sizing would have been a 20-22 instead. It meant I could kid myself with how much weight I was actually putting on. Only now do I find it a problem. Being under 5 foot it means that it is very difficult to find clothes that fit without resorting to the children's/teen department. While manufacturers have made clothing sizes larger to accommodate our growing waistlines, they are no longer making them as small.

    Is it possible that you are confusing vanity sizing with those that talk of wanting to lose vanity pounds? Those that are a healthy weight but want to lose that little bit extra, for a body they much prefer the look of? This actually has nothing to do with vanity sizing.

    I have tried to explain why this term upsets me, sorry if it’s still not clear but I don’t know how else to explain it. I never said that plus-sized and vanity sizes were the same thing, and I explicitly said I did not mean by my comments that smaller people should not be able to get clothes. I don’t think I’m confusing vanity sizing with vanity pounds either, I’m aware of the difference there.

    I just don’t like the word “vanity” in vanity sizing because to me it implies that there is something wrong with manufacturers making clothing bigger at the same size to suit the population’s getting bigger, and puts people who need that down. I’d just rather we called it some else rather than vanity, because it’s not vanity to want clothes that fit.

    But it IS vanity to want the clothes that fit to have a certain size on the label. There IS a problem with wanting to lie to yourself that you haven’t got bigger because you can still fit into a size 10 - and for clothing manufacturers to go along with that.

    It also makes shopping in charity shops, or for vintage clothes, really frustrating. There is nothing good or useful about changing the meaning of ‘size 10’ over time.

    I don’t agree - I needed vanity sizing when I was really fat because that meant I could fit into the standard range. It wasn’t about kidding myself, I knew I had put on weight, and I didn’t care what size was on the label I just needed to be able to buy clothes that would do up. As I’ve said elsewhere I’m tall and plus size stores, at least here in Australia, do not cater to tall women, so I don’t think it was vanity to opt for a big size 16 that fitted instead of a non-existent size 18 or 20.

    Wanting clothes that fit you and are correctly labeled as to their size does not involve vanity.

    Wanting clothes that fit you and are labeled as if they were smaller sized than they really are does involve vanity and is the reason this practice exists.

    Whether this practice, by happenstance, coincided with your particular needs which were not driven by vanity does not change the reason for and consequent label associated to the practice.

    To be honest the practice is demeaning and assumes a level of self deception which I'm surprised we so easily accept.

    In exchange for clothes that SOUND smaller than they really are we give up the right to have a reasonable expectation of fit without extensive testing when we pick up a particular size.

    How many people check your label's size when you're walking around? My vivid imagination tells me how well this would play out if I tried it while walking downtown!

    As to the rest of it: supply and demand. I used to shop the head office outlet store of a known sports / outdoor clothing manufacturer. I can walk there any time and find some really cheap 5x and 4x products. Lots of 3x too. Fewer, but good stock on 2x. Large and mediums? No way are these more commonly bought items available for less than 10% of retail (90% off) like the large sizes. 40% off and available in stock would be a lucky day! XS ladies? Sure. Plenty in the bargain bin for less than $10.

    Really small and really large remain a minority of sales (as evidenced by their relative discounting and availability in the bargain bin) and the manufacturers can't be bothered. Especially when really small can already be "accommodated" via clothes for younger people.

    Exactly this. Think of the number of posters that frame weight loss goals in terms of clothing sizes, i.e. "I want to fit in size 4 jeans again." types of statements. I don't necessarily consider that "vanity", it's a legitimate goal as far as I'm concerned, but marketing for clothing is certainly going to target those who won't buy a new wardrobe until they're reached what may be in impossible goal.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,743 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    While I'm not certain, I suspect my time spent eating in a deficit (55 pounds lost in ~1.5 years, so not a rapid rate of loss) may have contributed to my current iron deficiency anemia. Supplementing now. Boooo :frowning: Iron supplementation is no fun. Watch those micronutrients, kids!

    Are you a runner? Iron deficiency is very common in athletes. One theory is from the impact of the foot slapping pavement, but it is also common for swimmers.

    FWIW, I've made progress just using Naturemade iron 65 mg. tablets. Started at 11, now up to 22.
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    While I'm not certain, I suspect my time spent eating in a deficit (55 pounds lost in ~1.5 years, so not a rapid rate of loss) may have contributed to my current iron deficiency anemia. Supplementing now. Boooo :frowning: Iron supplementation is no fun. Watch those micronutrients, kids!

    Are you a runner? Iron deficiency is very common in athletes. One theory is from the impact of the foot slapping pavement, but it is also common for swimmers.

    FWIW, I've made progress just using Naturemade iron 65 mg. tablets. Started at 11, now up to 22.

    Not a runner; not even close :) I have heard that before, though.

    22 is better than 11! I hope it keeps rising for you. I tried multiple forms of iron; all made me absolutely miserable with digestive issues. Finally found one I can live with, although doubling the dosage as prescribed by my doctor hasn't been easy on my system.
  • JennJ323
    JennJ323 Posts: 646 Member
    The only downside I've found so far is not being able to fit into a lot of my old clothes. I hate having to spend the money to buy new stuff, I also hate that cute things I have can't be worn anymore. I bought a dress on a good sale in February, it's far too big on me now and either I have to pay for alterations or get rid of it.
  • slbbw
    slbbw Posts: 329 Member
    My favorite goal dress is too big and it is not easily tailorable. I also have not found anything similar lately. It is definitely making me sad.
  • Slashnl
    Slashnl Posts: 339 Member
    I'm a corrections officer and my duty belt rides right on my hips and digs into my hip bones. I'm constantly trying to hike it up or else it hurts.
    Kind of a pain in the butt but also satisfying that I even have that problem.

    My son was just sworn in this morning as a sheriff's deputy, and he'll be working at the county jail. So, I saw your post and wanted to say hi! Those duty belts are not made for comfort, I'm sure!! Congrats on your weight loss!