Women's clothing sizes

MindOverMatter

Just to add to what everyone else is saying here...I would like to add that I agree height, shape, bone structure, and muscle have everything to do with sizing. Sizing is a tricky thing for women because we can very well assume that the number means everthing. Unfortunately designers use a person a inspiration and if that person is shaped entirely different than you well...you will not fit into the clothing the same way as the person they designed for. My experience has been that I gain weight proportionally over my entire body so most people alwys guess that I am smaller than I am....this has a lot to do with my height.

I will give you a little run down...keep in mind I am 5'8

At my biggest 240 I wore a 16
At 220 I wore 12/14
At 215 and below I wear a 12....very strange how all of this works!

Look up Carlton Kressly (sp) "How to look good naked"....there is an episode about sizes and you would be floored!!

bjshooter

Ignore sizing completely, its completely individual and varies greatly on body shape, big boobs etc can make all the difference. Hieght is also a factor, not to mention, one size in one shop is usually completely different from the next. I can get in 12's sometimes and other times i struggle to do up an 18.

misstrish03

someone on this forum pointed out that they are 148 and wear an 8... i'm 170 and an 8.
i think it also depends on how much muscle you have! it makes you weigh more.

candacepainter

When i first started I weighed 294 and wore a size 24! Today I weigh 198 and wear 14/16!

ab_shutterbug

We must be about the same size/shape. I have lost 11 lbs. but still wearing a 12. I think the size has a 20-pound range in either direction! Can't wait to get down to a 10.

MissingMinnesota

It depends on a lot of factors. I just went through my cloest and packed up a pair of pants I wore 10 years ago when I was 20lbs lighter then I am now as they are too big. So I am actually a smaller size at 195 then I was at 175 since I have more muscle tone.

kikibruce

Im 196 and im in a size 16 at 5'6"

farr2fun

I found that when I shop in stores which sell more expensive clothing, the sizes which fit are always smaller than less expensive stores. But I never realised the same brand would size their clothing differently to get you to buy the more expensive versions. Note to self: Rely on the tape measure instead. It has no ulterior motive.

kerrymh

its all in how you carry your wt and how tall you are. I was 390 at my highest and I'm 5'8.5". I was in a tight 28. I lost 100lbs before I fit into a 20 and I had people around me who started @ the same size and lost 60Lbs and were in a 20. I don't stress about it. its about where you carry your wt and the height...

barty

And I guess you are in US as UK sizing is different a size 12 in US is a size 16 in UK I think!!!

Lisamarie1226

Great answeres and stories everyone! Yes, women sizes ARE jacked up AND how/where you carry your weight has a lot to do with sizing.

When I started my journey, I was 265 lbs, 5'1"-ish and mostly wore 22/24s. I lost 100 lbs and finally fit into size 10s. Then came a YEAR long plateau AND yo-yo weight loss/weight gain of about 25-30 lbs. When I first met my boyfriend, I was about 177/180 lbs and wore a size 18 from Lane Bryant. I had some complications and got down to 152 lbs and my size 10s were fitting loosely. I started getting better and steadily started gaining weight. I got back up to 184 lbs (at my heaviest) and still managed to stay in 12s (and SOME 10s depending on the cut/style). Since then, I'm back to 160 and back in size 10s. I tried on a pair size 8 jeans at old navy and I was able to button them up but I had a severe case of muffin top, plus they are really tight across my butt and in the thigh area. I'm thinking another 10-15 lbs loss will get me to the size 8s...

However, my ex roommate, claimed she was 234 at her heaviest (she was/is a lot rounder than me in the midsection but has like practically no *kitten* and wears her pants under her waist). She only claimed to wear 20s and after just barely getting under 200 lbs said she is "almost ready" for size 12s... she says her 14s are getting loose. Again, she wears her pants under her belly but her butt and thighs aren't as big as mine. And she's slighter shorted than me as well.

So, yes, height and body composition have a lot to do with it. But also, how you wear your clothes can be a factor!

Mirabilis

If I had to be described as a fruit, I suppose I'm an apple -- small bum, big stomach, small chest (thank you genetics). At 208 I fit size 18 pants (stretchy) and 20 pants with a zipper (but very comfortable and on the loose side).

I'm somewhere between 5' 6" and 5'7".

On top, I'm down two bra sizes, from 44B to 40B (see what I mean about small chest) but depending on the cut, I fit XL tshirts and 20-22 blouses.

At my lowest adult weight of 145, I wore zipped up size 14 pants, but that was ooooh 30 years ago. Wearing less than a 14 would be a complete mind blower. I would not leave my stomach outside my pants under any circumstances heh.

When I hear about women being big on top, big in the middle and smaller on the bottom, I don't have a fruit analogy, which makes me happy because I don't think the analogy is a good one.

I don't want to be a vegetable either

Mirii

AllergicToExercise

I'm guessing that some people are referring to UK sizes and some to US sizes as well (I think a UK 12 = a US 8?) so this could be part of the difference in comparisons.

Plus I agree with the body fat % contributing as a lower BF% in 2 people of the same weight would probably mean a smaller size.

Shops don't help either with sizes that vary so much. Is it any wonder we get frustrated with sizing when we go shopping?! :grumble: