All 5'3" - 5'5" -- Let's compare weight w/pants size
Replies
-
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.0 -
I know I don't really fall into this catagory being 5'7" but...
Weight = 145
Pants = size 5 or 4, women's size 2 at old navy0 -
Starting - 5'5 138lbs pants size 6 (US)
Now - 5'5 126lbs pants size 4 (US)
GW- 120 and hopefully my size 4 pants will be a little bit loose by then.0 -
I'm 5'5" and 198lbs. Size 12 US! I'm obviously very compact for a woman of my "size."0
-
5'5"
SW 262 - size 22/24
CW 162 - size 12 (some 10s)
GW 145 - hopefully a size 8, but I'm a pear for sure, so you never know. I'm wearing a medium top now and am hoping I won't lose much more from the top half of my body (except my bat wings)0 -
5'5"
CW: 143 lbs
Size: US size 6
I carry most of my weight in my thighs and butt (and boobs!) but have a relatively small waist/hips.
At my smallest I weighed 110 and I was a size 0.
My goal is 120lbs and I think I'll be a size 2.0 -
Started at 249 lbs (Jan 2012) - size 20 pants
Currently 175 lbs - size 8 - 10 pants. I have purchased 3 size 8 pants!! woohoo0 -
5"4
Started- 153 lb size 11
Now- 124 lb size 40 -
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.
body fat is not measured in measurements alone. She stated she had 98 pounds of lean muscle mass, so COULD have less body fat, therefore making her sizes smaller. My response was just a guesstimate as I do not know either of your body fat, but generally, that makes a difference.0 -
Height: 5'6.5"
Weight 155lbs
Jean Size 40 -
I'm 5'3
sw 319 pant size 26-28
cw 262 pant size 20-220 -
5'3"
current weight 122-124: size 4 (juniors 5 or 7), but size 6 up top
when I was 117 I was 2; when I was 117 and lifting a lot I was a 0 or 2. (juniors 1, 3 or 5); size 4 up top
when I was 108-113 I was 0 or 2.
I find juniors sizes more unpredictable than womens sizes.0 -
I'm 5'2"
SW: 230 18/20
When I was 145 I worse 12/13
NW: 159 14/15
I really need to get back to 145 or less/
ps, those are junior sizes.0 -
5'3"
SW 152 - US size 14 - tight
CW 127 - US size 10 - perfect fit0 -
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.
body fat is not measured in measurements alone. She stated she had 98 pounds of lean muscle mass, so COULD have less body fat, therefore making her sizes smaller. My response was just a guesstimate as I do not know either of your body fat, but generally, that makes a difference.
She stated her measurements, which is what clothing sizes are based on.........0 -
5'3", barely.
I just started at 136 and wear size 8 pants.
Back when I was down to 115, I was at a size 4.0 -
5'3-
CW: 118lbs and size 0/2 and when I weighed 140lbs I wore size 4/60 -
I really think they have changed the standards for sizes. Years ago at around 150-165, I wore anywhere from a 12-14. Now at between 140-150, depending on the day, week or month
I can still get into my size 4's. I am just under 5'5" 0 -
5'4"
At 300-310 I wore size 24-26.
Now I'm around 285-290 and I'm down to a 22. Hopefully a 20 soon!!
ME TOO!!!!!, i'm at 230 and i feel the 22 a little lose on my thighs yay .. 20 here i come0 -
I'm 5'4" about 153 and pant size is 6-8. At 140 I am 4-6 , 135 2-4, 130, 0 - 2.
This is a great example of how body type impacts size. I'm currently 139~140, 5'4" wearing 8s. 10s are just now getting too big. When I was at my skinniest, with quite a bit of muscle at 110-112 I was wearing a 4. Very rarely did a 2 fit me, even then. I have always had a bubble butt, no matter how much weight I've lost. Plus, I've got mommy hips, so I couldn't wear junior sizes if my life depended on it.0 -
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.
body fat is not measured in measurements alone. She stated she had 98 pounds of lean muscle mass, so COULD have less body fat, therefore making her sizes smaller. My response was just a guesstimate as I do not know either of your body fat, but generally, that makes a difference.
She stated her measurements, which is what clothing sizes are based on.........
I really wasn't trying to bunch your undies... But, seriously last summer I was 120 pounds wearing a size 6, with 24% body fat, then I gained weight and dropped body fat, i.e. 130 pounds wearing a size 2, with 18% body fat. The weight went up, body fat went down, clothing size went down.0 -
Height - 5'3"
SW - 163 lbs - size 13/14
CW - 139 lbs - size 9/10 and getting a little baggy
GW - 130 lbs... hoping size 7/8, maybe smaller...0 -
I can't figure out how every body wears such tiny clothes - when I was a fit 145 (I'm 5'5), I still wore a 12. 10 would never fit and I always felt "fat" because people asked what size I was and when I said 12, they would say, "You don't look that big."
I worked long and hard on the farm and looked good. . .
THIS! At 5'4" 150lbs (which I was at in high school) I had very little fat on me (I was a lifeguard so I swam constantly and ran a couple of miles everyday as well as helping out on the farm/doing lots of yard-work). My dietitian told me yesterday that with my BF%, that's probably my ideal weight and I was a size 12 at the time. 10 on a *really* good day. I got "you don't look that fat." or "you wear what size?!...oh - sorry..." all the time. It was so frustrating. Kind of even more frustrating to hear that's probably the smallest size I'll ever fit into.![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
Growing up with a couple of sisters who wore 00s didn't help much. LOL
To keep it on-topic:
5'4"
HW: 254lbs (US size 20)
CW: 225lbs (US size 16-18? not sure - haven't been shopping yet)0 -
5'3 1/2"
Starting weight 216lbs in size tight 16's couldn't force myself to go up
Current weight 200lbs really loose 16's, but not buying new pants until they are about to fall off
0 -
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.
body fat is not measured in measurements alone. She stated she had 98 pounds of lean muscle mass, so COULD have less body fat, therefore making her sizes smaller. My response was just a guesstimate as I do not know either of your body fat, but generally, that makes a difference.
She stated her measurements, which is what clothing sizes are based on.........
I really wasn't trying to bunch your undies... But, seriously last summer I was 120 pounds wearing a size 6, with 24% body fat, then I gained weight and dropped body fat, i.e. 130 pounds wearing a size 2, with 18% body fat. The weight went up, body fat went down, clothing size went down.
Have you read what I was asking? the OP and I have the exact same body measurements (you know, measurements that are used for clothing sizes - inches around your waist, hips etc) but we wear drastically different sizes. Either she's shopping at a very generous place or I'm shopping at a very ungenerous place. See what I mean?1 -
5'4
SW 245 size 20-22
CW 206 size 16 (14 in some stores and 18 in others)0 -
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.
body fat is not measured in measurements alone. She stated she had 98 pounds of lean muscle mass, so COULD have less body fat, therefore making her sizes smaller. My response was just a guesstimate as I do not know either of your body fat, but generally, that makes a difference.
She stated her measurements, which is what clothing sizes are based on.........
I really wasn't trying to bunch your undies... But, seriously last summer I was 120 pounds wearing a size 6, with 24% body fat, then I gained weight and dropped body fat, i.e. 130 pounds wearing a size 2, with 18% body fat. The weight went up, body fat went down, clothing size went down.
Have you read what I was asking? the OP and I have the exact same body measurements (you know, measurements that are used for clothing sizes - inches around your waist, hips etc) but we wear drastically different sizes. Either she's shopping at a very generous place or I'm shopping at a very ungenerous place. See what I mean?
yes, I knew what you were saying.... you know what? nevermind. Clearly we are speaking different languages, so no further explanation will help you see how it is possible for there to be a size difference.0 -
5'.2.5 CW 119
26.5 waist 35" around fullest part of hips/butt
In women's I wear a comfortable size 2, in some brands a size 0 and I have a few 00 but that's clearly vanity sizing.
In Jr's it usually a 3 or 5, sometimes a 1 again depending on brand.
SW close to 170..163 my first weigh in. 34" waist 42" hips.. I was wearing a 12 or 14 in womens. Couldn't fit into Jr sizing
I don't mean this to be rude, I'm just curious... but how are your sizes possible? I have the exact same measurements and I wear a US 6 (at 90% of stores)
this is another example of where body fat (more than likely) plays a key role in pants size. The less body fat you have, the smaller the size will be.
No, we have the same measurements. 26.5 inches of muscle and 26.5 inches of fat are the same amount of inches either way. We have the same hip measurement as well.
body fat is not measured in measurements alone. She stated she had 98 pounds of lean muscle mass, so COULD have less body fat, therefore making her sizes smaller. My response was just a guesstimate as I do not know either of your body fat, but generally, that makes a difference.
She stated her measurements, which is what clothing sizes are based on.........
I really wasn't trying to bunch your undies... But, seriously last summer I was 120 pounds wearing a size 6, with 24% body fat, then I gained weight and dropped body fat, i.e. 130 pounds wearing a size 2, with 18% body fat. The weight went up, body fat went down, clothing size went down.
Have you read what I was asking? the OP and I have the exact same body measurements (you know, measurements that are used for clothing sizes - inches around your waist, hips etc) but we wear drastically different sizes. Either she's shopping at a very generous place or I'm shopping at a very ungenerous place. See what I mean?
yes, I knew what you were saying.... you know what? nevermind. Clearly we are speaking different languages, so no further explanation will help you see how it is possible for there to be a size difference.
are you really trying to tell me that a barrel made of fat with a 27 inch circumference is bigger than a barrel of muscle with a 27 inch circumference?1 -
are you really trying to tell me that a barrel made of fat with a 27 inch circumference is bigger than a barrel of muscle with a 27 inch circumference?
while fat and muscle weigh the same, fat does take up more room as muscle is more dense than fat. So, yes, that is what I was saying.0 -
are you really trying to tell me that a barrel made of fat with a 27 inch circumference is bigger than a barrel of muscle with a 27 inch circumference?
while fat and muscle weigh the same, fat does take up more room as muscle is more dense than fat. So, yes, that is what I was saying.
26.5 inches and 26.5 inches are the same regardless of the material. That is just common sense.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions