Unexpected downsides of losing weight
Replies
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »MelanieCN77 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.
And why were those stores using vanity sizing to make their sizes larger? Because they wanted to cater to larger customers.
They could have done that by just adding size 18s to their range. Why do you think they didn't do that?26 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »MelanieCN77 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.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »MelanieCN77 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.
And why were those stores using vanity sizing to make their sizes larger? Because they wanted to cater to larger customers.
They could have done that by just adding size 18s to their range. Why do you think they didn't do that?
Maybe they thought people who thought of themselves as size 18 would not shop there at all, thinking “I’m too big for that shop” whereas people who thought they were a size 16 could go in and find something that fitted. Also carrying a wider range of sizes, while it would be the right thing to do, is probably more expensive than making the narrower range bigger.
You shopped there.
As for carrying a wider range of sizes being more expensive than making the narrower range bigger - why are you ignoring option 3, carrying the same number of sizes, but 8-18 (say) rather than 6-16?5 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »MelanieCN77 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.
Vanity sizing doesn’t make it harder for me to buy clothes. Before I lost my weight it was what made it possible.
No. Shops carrying clothes in your size made it possible for you to buy clothes.
Shops calling that size by a smaller number was irrelevant.17 -
This content has been removed.
-
You shopped there.
As for carrying a wider range of sizes being more expensive than making the narrower range bigger - why are you ignoring option 3, carrying the same number of sizes, but 8-18 (say) rather than 6-16?
1. I did not think of option 3 when I was writing my response.
2. I did not shop in many, many shops because I thought their clothes were too small for me. I had not been to some of them in years so I would not have known if they had suddenly added a size 18.
And if you would not have known if those shops had added a size 18, you definitely wouldn't have known if their size 16 had become large enough for you. So their upsizing of existing sizes wouldn't have helped you or anyone else in your position at all, would it?11 -
This content has been removed.
-
No. Shops carrying clothes in your size made it possible for you to buy clothes.
Shops calling that size by a smaller number was irrelevant.
As I said in an earlier post sizing is not objective- the clothing is what size the manufacturers make it, so if they call a something that once was an 18 a 16 that’s what it is. It’s relevant what’s on the label because stores only carry a limited number of sizes and in Australia at least 16s are limited, let alone 18s.
Sizing is not objective, but if it isn't reasonably consistent it's no use at all.
And here's a thought that occurred to me; making all the existing sizes larger is actively unhelpful to people who have been gaining weight and are sizing out of the 'normal' shops. Because if they think they're a size 16 and plus sizes start at 18, they may not realise that the sizes have all changed such that they can now also fit in the smallest sizes carried bu 'plus size' shops. So they limit themselves unnecessarily to what limited 16s they can find.
(All sizes just for illustration purposes, sizes and ranges differ from country to country)5 -
This content has been removed.
-
You shopped there.
As for carrying a wider range of sizes being more expensive than making the narrower range bigger - why are you ignoring option 3, carrying the same number of sizes, but 8-18 (say) rather than 6-16?
1. I did not think of option 3 when I was writing my response.
2. I did not shop in many, many shops because I thought their clothes were too small for me. I had not been to some of them in years so I would not have known if they had suddenly added a size 18.
And if you would not have known if those shops had added a size 18, you definitely wouldn't have known if their size 16 had become large enough for you. So their upsizing of existing sizes wouldn't have helped you or anyone else in your position at all, would it?
Look, I’m sick of debating this. I’ve tried hard to explain why I am offended by this term, and no one seems to understand what I’m saying. I think I’m entitled to hold my opinion without getting flamed for it. I’m not going to engage you any further on this. I haven’t changed my view based on your arguments and you don’t seem to be changing yours based on what I’m saying, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’m hurt that you think I’m vain but I’m also sick of trying to make my point.
We understand what you're saying. We just think you're wrong.
Also, nobody has said you're vain, and you are not being 'flamed', you are just being disagreed with. I'm sorry you are having such difficulty with that.32 -
I'm 21 days into MFP calorie counting, and for the last week my digestion has slowed down, even though I avoid processed food as much as possible, and I exercise regularly. I think it's just a passing phase, that my body needs to adjust to the new regime.
So far that's the only downside of losing weight.5 -
You shopped there.
As for carrying a wider range of sizes being more expensive than making the narrower range bigger - why are you ignoring option 3, carrying the same number of sizes, but 8-18 (say) rather than 6-16?
1. I did not think of option 3 when I was writing my response.
2. I did not shop in many, many shops because I thought their clothes were too small for me. I had not been to some of them in years so I would not have known if they had suddenly added a size 18.
And if you would not have known if those shops had added a size 18, you definitely wouldn't have known if their size 16 had become large enough for you. So their upsizing of existing sizes wouldn't have helped you or anyone else in your position at all, would it?
Look, I’m sick of debating this. I’ve tried hard to explain why I am offended by this term, and no one seems to understand what I’m saying. I think I’m entitled to hold my opinion without getting flamed for it. I’m not going to engage you any further on this. I haven’t changed my view based on your arguments and you don’t seem to be changing yours based on what I’m saying, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’m hurt that you think I’m vain but I’m also sick of trying to make my point.
You’re offended by the term because you misunderstand it.20 -
Anyone else skip the last two pages?? Would you like a thread to continue your discussion?
Downsides to losing weight... (and the topic resumes)28 -
My downside at the moment, if I try to lose too much my milk supply drops. Thought I was ammune to this having oversupply but nope 😕.
I'm not back to goal yet but from last time: people acting differently and more likely getting offended when I talked about weight loss etc.
Nobbly knees.
Small deflated boobs... I don't mind they shrunk as I could run etc easier but did they have to look like deflated balloons.
Fat brain hit me hard.
Having to try on clothes because what suits changed so much so shopping took longer. (not mentioning other aspect in fear thread will get taken over again).
The pros outweigh the cons, I couldn't list all the pros.7 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »MelanieCN77 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.3 -
Vanity sizing is a marketing term for lying about what size the clothes are. I'll take a 12 please...oh! This is too big, I guess I need a 10...I feel so skinny, I'll take it!
It doesn't mean the person buying it is vain. It's just the name of the practice. It's widely known to happen...like I am 5'2, 165 pounds and I wear a small dress at old navy sometimes???11 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »I am surprised by the number that have developed Reynauds since losing weight. I have too but never put it down to losing weight. Last winter was so bad that my fingers were swollen and covered in chilblains to the point that I couldn't hold a pen without pain. It wasn't a case of many shades of grey, but many shades of red and purple. I am in Australia and about to approach another winter. I have stopped walking in the mornings when it is cold and don't go anywhere without gloves and hand warmers. Fingers crossed I can still cross my fingers throughout this winter.
For all the ladies with Reynauds - mine kicked in with peri-menopause which is clearly the gift that keeps on giving. This may be another reason for some along with the weight loss to have this come on.
@seltzermint555 - Thanks for the tip on the heated gloves !5 -
Downside: First on, last off. I’ve had a belly since I was nine years old. Guess the only part of me that is not getting smaller.7
-
i've kind of turned into an impatient prick towards other people. i hate that i have, but it's the truth. i probably need counseling.9
-
MrsBradyBunch wrote: »Downside: First on, last off. I’ve had a belly since I was nine years old. Guess the only part of me that is not getting smaller.
I second this motion.
Unexpected downside of losing 50lbs? That losing the last 20 would be so hard! The more you lose the harder it is... I wish we lived on a planet where our body's biology rewarded us for getting healthier by just melting the last few away9 -
Hungry_Shopgirl wrote: »MrsBradyBunch wrote: »Downside: First on, last off. I’ve had a belly since I was nine years old. Guess the only part of me that is not getting smaller.
I second this motion.
Unexpected downside of losing 50lbs? That losing the last 20 would be so hard! The more you lose the harder it is... I wish we lived on a planet where our body's biology rewarded us for getting healthier by just melting the last few away
I think it's a mechanism to keep people from starving, leftover from the days when food wasn't always available. We want it to work differently now, but have thousands of years of evolution against us.10 -
-
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
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 22.1 -
spiriteagle99 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 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.2 -
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.7 -
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.3
-
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.4
-
brittanystebbins95 wrote: »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!2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions