Size 12 = Fat?
Replies
-
I'm a size 12.
I'm 5'7"
I don't think I'm "fat".
Technically by bulls**t BMI standards I'm still 3 lbs away from being in the "normal" weight range.
But even my trainer was shocked I weighed 163lbs
Even when I was 155lbs I was in a size 10.
But I've also seen people that have a smaller pant size than me but look bigger than me just because of their body composition.0 -
I agree it depends on the person, especially their height. When I was at my lowest weight in my adult life, I was 140lbs & I'm 5'6 & I was wearing size 10/12 &I was skinny. I never got below a size 10 ever. I'd be happy to get back there, I would even settle for a size 14/16
0 -
from webmd only cause it was the first one that popped up *rolls eyes*Today, the average American woman is 5’4″, has a waist size of 34-35 inches and weighs between 140-150 lbs, with a dress size of 12-14.
wow.
I feel pretty incredible right now.
Im going to go to the gym.
thanks for the motivation!
i was 5'4" with a 34" waist and weighed 174 lbs. I must have been carrying a lot of muscle 0 -
It definitely depends on the person! When I was a size 12, I considered myself to be pretty overweight. But I also have serious self-image problems, so do I think everyone who is a size 12 is overweight? Heck no!!0
-
It also depends in which country you buy your clothes in!
This is a conversion chart - I am in Australia and American sizes are different to ours - so US size 12 is Aust size 14.
http://www.onlineconversion.com/clothing_womens.htm
It's about how good you feel, how your clothes look, your shape, height, etc. Size is just a number. Clothing also varies with manufacturers, so one company's size 12 will be another company's size 10 or 14!
PS I also think BMI is not a particularly good guide - more a general indicator. Google BMI and see the history of where the numbers came from!! :noway:0 -
I'm going to have to agree that it depends a lot on your build. I'm 5' 10", and my size 6's are loose - but I've never had wide hips (to my great dismay). I can't imagine getting up to a size 12 because it's not the way I'm built. One of my closest friends is identical in height and waist size, but has significantly wider hips. She wears a size 10 or 12 no problem.0
-
hell no. i'd love to be a 12, would never want to be a size 8. I like my curves when they come out of hiding. 12 is awesome0
-
It also depends in which country you buy your clothes in!
Opps duplicate, I thought it hadn't posted. Still half asleep! Where's that black coffee - double!!0 -
My mother in law is a tiny, slim, Chinese woman and wears size 14 since having kids. She was sweet and told her daughters this when I had my 1st child and was trying to lose the extra pounds which I did. My sister is slim and is 5'10" tall and usually wears a 14 too and at least a 12. Even when I was my ideal weight I wore an 8 or 10 but then although I have hips I have a smaller frame. A 10 or 12 is an average size for most healthy, women over 18. I was checking out the spring fashions lately since my son is getting married and I was wondering what I would wear. I always knew models were too skinny but now they look really unhealthy. They basically look like they are dying of starvation. Let's get real 12 is great. It depends on your body. It depends on how you feel and look in it. Congratulations. 12 does not = fat.0
-
i think it depends.
for me, yes because i am 5'5" and about 200 or less and i wear a loose US size 12 (in most brands) and sometimes ill go ahead and squeeze into US size 10s due to my body composition. so im aiming to be around a 6 or 8 (perhaps smaller) when i lose the 35 pounds i need to lose.
for others, size 12 fits them perfectly and they look amazing in it. and they should rock it without a second thought.
clothing sizes aren't a great measure for things.I do measurements with a tape measure for the small motivational reasons.for me, when i love the way i look and i also feel healthy that's when i'll know so that is how i am measuring overall.0 -
Maybe this makes me a jerk, but I have a problem with anyone saying they "can't" get down to a certain weight or size within a healthy BMI range because of their build. The variance in skeletal structure is just not that extreme. I'm not the size I am and shape I am because I have a "small frame" or "small build." I am the size and shape I am because I work really hard-- I train about 10 hours a week and usually eat a pretty strict diet. It's okay to say it's just not a priority to do what it takes to be a certain size or weight or shape or whatever... but it's just irritating to hear people say that they can't physically do it.
So you're saying that someone who is naturally an apple shape can diet and exercise her way to a pear or hourglass shape (body shape).
And, yes, frame size varies greatly. There are women my height who at 140 pounds and a size 8 or 10 look fantastic because they have a bigger frame. I have a small frame, so at 140 pounds, I still need to lose weight to look as good.0 -
I'm 5'3", 151 pounds and my waist is 28.5 inches. At my heaviest (166), my waist was only 31 inches and I wore a 12.from webmd only cause it was the first one that popped up *rolls eyes*Today, the average American woman is 5’4″, has a waist size of 34-35 inches and weighs between 140-150 lbs, with a dress size of 12-14.
wow.
I feel pretty incredible right now.
Im going to go to the gym.
thanks for the motivation!
i was 5'4" with a 34" waist and weighed 174 lbs. I must have been carrying a lot of muscle0 -
Just before I started college and I was in a healthy weight range. I stayed with friends that were dieting (WW). And consequently lost weight. When I started eating in the dorm I kept eating the way we were and there weren't many choices in the dorm and ended up at 99 lbs at 5'6". Everyone started to tell me I was too thin and luckily I listened to them. I never wore anything under a 5 or a 7 in my life except maybe in a really fancy expensive brand for formal wear that ran larger then. Even then the size 5 were big ones. I am curvy but don't even now have big hips. So I would look like I was dying in anything smaller with my build and I have a small frame. And those sizes are from 40 years ago. Yes if you are shorter size 2s are OK and if you have a different frame but no way should everyone be wearing size 2 or 4s.0
-
depends on how u look
size 12 on me would be fat
size 12 on my friend looks great0 -
Maybe this makes me a jerk, but I have a problem with anyone saying they "can't" get down to a certain weight or size within a healthy BMI range because of their build. The variance in skeletal structure is just not that extreme. I'm not the size I am and shape I am because I have a "small frame" or "small build." I am the size and shape I am because I work really hard-- I train about 10 hours a week and usually eat a pretty strict diet. It's okay to say it's just not a priority to do what it takes to be a certain size or weight or shape or whatever... but it's just irritating to hear people say that they can't physically do it.
So you're saying that someone who is naturally an apple shape can diet and exercise her way to a pear or hourglass shape (body shape).
And, yes, frame size varies greatly. There are women my height who at 140 pounds and a size 8 or 10 look fantastic because they have a bigger frame. I have a small frame, so at 140 pounds, I still need to lose weight to look as good.
To some extent, an "apple shape" can become a "pear" or "hourglass" shape. Some of that "apple" is fat. I never had a waist until my body fat go low enough. It had to get much lower for me than for someone with a natural hourglass or hips, but my shape did change through extensive exercise and diet. Also, I have a "large frame" at 5'7" with 7' wrists, but I don't use that as an excuse for being over fat or big. It sounds like the "I'm just big boned excuse to me."0 -
I've always thought of anything over a size 7 as pretty big unless you're around 5'10", but numbers are all relative. BMI is a way better indicator of whether you are at a good weight than clothing size. Your 5k time is a way better indicator than either.
Except it's not. The BMI scale was a tool made up by a PSYCHOLOGIST for a study, where he specifically said, "This should not be used as an indicator of health," and really only became in vogue medically in the 70s. It is not the best indicators... body fat % is a much better indicator of health in terms of "weight." You can have a low body fat % with an emphasis on muscle, and still have a "high" BMI.
right? because I can be 140 lbs with 18% bf or I can be 140 lbs of 25% bf and they would have the exact same BMI.
But both of them would be in the healthy range of bodyfat. Not over fat, which was what the OP was asking. I know everyone knocks the BMI deal, but it really does give a pretty broad window, and it's more reliable than the clothing size, that was my point.0 -
I've always thought of anything over a size 7 as pretty big unless you're around 5'10", but numbers are all relative. BMI is a way better indicator of whether you are at a good weight than clothing size. Your 5k time is a way better indicator than either.
Except it's not. The BMI scale was a tool made up by a PSYCHOLOGIST for a study, where he specifically said, "This should not be used as an indicator of health," and really only became in vogue medically in the 70s. It is not the best indicators... body fat % is a much better indicator of health in terms of "weight." You can have a low body fat % with an emphasis on muscle, and still have a "high" BMI.
Exactly!! The funny thing is that people assume any critisism of the BMI is just made by fat people in denial. When in fact some studies show that the BMI is even more inaccurate at under-classifying people. That is, people who are small and have very little muscle are classified as healthy, despite actually having unhealthy levels of fat.
Personally I have no intention of ever being in the healthy BMI range and its not because I have lower standards, or am in denial or whatever. It is simply because I have no desire to lose the muscle I would need to get there. Its simple mathematics, based on my BMI and my BF% I would need to get to 4% BF to scrape into the healthy BMI range... Obviously that would never happen, so I would actually need to lose muscle... Why would I do that?? So morons with far less healthy lifestyles than me can look at a chart and tell me I am now healthy?? whatevs0 -
I've always thought of anything over a size 7 as pretty big unless you're around 5'10", but numbers are all relative. BMI is a way better indicator of whether you are at a good weight than clothing size. Your 5k time is a way better indicator than either.
Except it's not. The BMI scale was a tool made up by a PSYCHOLOGIST for a study, where he specifically said, "This should not be used as an indicator of health," and really only became in vogue medically in the 70s. It is not the best indicators... body fat % is a much better indicator of health in terms of "weight." You can have a low body fat % with an emphasis on muscle, and still have a "high" BMI.
right? because I can be 140 lbs with 18% bf or I can be 140 lbs of 25% bf and they would have the exact same BMI.
But both of them would be in the healthy range of bodyfat. Not over fat, which was what the OP was asking. I know everyone knocks the BMI deal, but it really does give a pretty broad window, and it's more reliable than the clothing size, that was my point.
But then what is it even telling you? That both those people are the same? That they're both healthy, unhealthy, sorta healthy? It is a good tool for a broad view of a population, its not a good diagnostic tool for an individual...0 -
I've always thought of anything over a size 7 as pretty big unless you're around 5'10", but numbers are all relative. BMI is a way better indicator of whether you are at a good weight than clothing size. Your 5k time is a way better indicator than either.
Except it's not. The BMI scale was a tool made up by a PSYCHOLOGIST for a study, where he specifically said, "This should not be used as an indicator of health," and really only became in vogue medically in the 70s. It is not the best indicators... body fat % is a much better indicator of health in terms of "weight." You can have a low body fat % with an emphasis on muscle, and still have a "high" BMI.
right? because I can be 140 lbs with 18% bf or I can be 140 lbs of 25% bf and they would have the exact same BMI.
But both of them would be in the healthy range of bodyfat. Not over fat, which was what the OP was asking. I know everyone knocks the BMI deal, but it really does give a pretty broad window, and it's more reliable than the clothing size, that was my point.
But then what is it even telling you? That both those people are the same? That they're both healthy, unhealthy, sorta healthy? It is a good tool for a broad view of a population, its not a good diagnostic tool for an individual...
But it's more accurate than pants size... which means absolutely nothing... that was all I was saying... most people can't get an accurate bodyfat test... so BMI is not the worst measure out there...0 -
Not the worst.. maybe... although this study shows that is failed to show excess fat HALF THE TIME... So a flip of a coin would be as accurate... http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v34/n5/abs/ijo20105a.html0
-
Not the worst.. maybe... although this study shows that is failed to show excess fat HALF THE TIME... So a flip of a coin would be as accurate... http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v34/n5/abs/ijo20105a.html
Flip of coin. Lol.0 -
why does it matter...I have size 10's and 12's and even a few 8's in my closet...they all fit differently. It's just a number on a tag. If you look fat, you look fat no matter what size you wear. I like to take progress pics that way I can see actual changes instead of being freaked out I can't squeeze into a smaller size.0
-
We could save a lot of trouble if women's clothing were sized like men's. Who cares what magic number is on the tag, just put waist and hip sizes and everyone would be much happier!
I have a pair of size 10 Calvins from 1982 that measure 27 in the waist and 34 in the hips. They are the same size as a size 2 American Eagle jean today. So in the 80s, a size 12 would have been about 29 in the waist and 36 in the hips in a boy-cut like Calvins. Gloria Vanderbilts would have been about 26 in the waist.
Today's size 12 can be up to a 36 inch waist, which is not healthy for most average height women. It also depends on how much you are willing to spend, and if they are stretch pants. I'm sure that at 5'6 and 198 I could find some 12s I could squeeze into if I was willing to pay enough, or if they were elastic waist. As it is, my Lee Rider slimming size 16 jeans are pretty snug right now. 18s are very comfortable on my 41 inch waist and hips. Yes, I have a Sponge Bob body. :-(
I doubt I will ever be able to fit in my Calvins again, but they are fun to keep around.
BTW, I have heard that your waist size should not be more than one half your height in inches. I am 66" tall, so a 33" waist would be my max to be considered healthy. I still have a ways to go! But hitting ONE-derland this week was a huge motivational boost!0 -
I've always thought of anything over a size 7 as pretty big unless you're around 5'10", but numbers are all relative. BMI is a way better indicator of whether you are at a good weight than clothing size. Your 5k time is a way better indicator than either.
Except it's not. The BMI scale was a tool made up by a PSYCHOLOGIST for a study, where he specifically said, "This should not be used as an indicator of health," and really only became in vogue medically in the 70s. It is not the best indicators... body fat % is a much better indicator of health in terms of "weight." You can have a low body fat % with an emphasis on muscle, and still have a "high" BMI.
right? because I can be 140 lbs with 18% bf or I can be 140 lbs of 25% bf and they would have the exact same BMI.
But both of them would be in the healthy range of bodyfat. Not over fat, which was what the OP was asking. I know everyone knocks the BMI deal, but it really does give a pretty broad window, and it's more reliable than the clothing size, that was my point.
But then what is it even telling you? That both those people are the same? That they're both healthy, unhealthy, sorta healthy? It is a good tool for a broad view of a population, its not a good diagnostic tool for an individual...
But it's more accurate than pants size... which means absolutely nothing... that was all I was saying... most people can't get an accurate bodyfat test... so BMI is not the worst measure out there...
I hear ya. I think the more overweight you are, the more useful it is. I guess I was just imaging Arnold in his finest days having a BMi that says he is obese. But obvi that's a ridiculous example because very few of us will ever have that kinda muscle! Lol! I think I get caught up in these specifics as I focus on body composition more. But the access to an accurate bf measurement is a really valid point. I'm lucky I live someplace where I can go pay someone to test me accurately.0 -
Maybe this makes me a jerk, but I have a problem with anyone saying they "can't" get down to a certain weight or size within a healthy BMI range because of their build. The variance in skeletal structure is just not that extreme. I'm not the size I am and shape I am because I have a "small frame" or "small build." I am the size and shape I am because I work really hard-- I train about 10 hours a week and usually eat a pretty strict diet. It's okay to say it's just not a priority to do what it takes to be a certain size or weight or shape or whatever... but it's just irritating to hear people say that they can't physically do it.
So you're saying that someone who is naturally an apple shape can diet and exercise her way to a pear or hourglass shape (body shape).
And, yes, frame size varies greatly. There are women my height who at 140 pounds and a size 8 or 10 look fantastic because they have a bigger frame. I have a small frame, so at 140 pounds, I still need to lose weight to look as good.
To some extent, an "apple shape" can become a "pear" or "hourglass" shape. Some of that "apple" is fat. I never had a waist until my body fat go low enough. It had to get much lower for me than for someone with a natural hourglass or hips, but my shape did change through extensive exercise and diet. Also, I have a "large frame" at 5'7" with 7' wrists, but I don't use that as an excuse for being over fat or big. It sounds like the "I'm just big boned excuse to me."
You cannot create an hourglass or pear through diet and exercise if you do not naturally have that body shape. You would have to have surgery to change your skeletal structure.
Most women who are hourglasses or pears still retain the basic body shape (smaller waist compared to hips) at higher weights. My mother is morbidly obese, but still very clearly a pear.
If you do not naturally have a small waist/larger hips ratio, not amount of diet and exercise will give you that shape.
As for the larger frame, it isn't a matter of using it as an excuse for being overfat. You're touting the BMI scale. For my height, I can be anywhere from 103 to 141 pounds and be in a healthy range. Clearly, a smaller framed person can look good at 103, but is a larger framed person going to look very good at 103? Conversly, I look awful at 141 pounds, but I've seen more than one woman my height at that weight who looks fantastic.
My best friend is 5'7" and large framed. She got down to 128 pounds at one point and looked like a skeleton. She was in the healthy range and I believe a size 2 or 4, but it didn't look good or healthy on her.0 -
I agree with other posters that said it really depends on the person. I do NOT think someone who is a size 12 is "fat" (I hate that word, btw). I was ECSTATIC when I got into 12's! I started at a size 18.
Great job on your progress so far...keep it up! :happy:0 -
I think it all has to do with your build/height. Myself, as a size 12, I was fat. but someone who is taller than I am will look thin and perfect in a 120
-
Size 12 is too big for me. I'm 5ft. My ideal weight would be somewhere along 105? I think that maybe too small, but I may change my mind when I get there. At my heaviest, I wore a size 14 and I hated it. After having my baby earlier this year, I was forced to put on those size 14's again. I was not happy.0
-
It depends on your height, and body structure as well. Someone who is shorter can wear a smaller size but still be at the same BMI as someone who is taller at a bigger size.
Also a 12 in juniors will be smaller than a 12 in women's and so on.0 -
It depends on you and you only. If you feel amazing at size 12, go for it! If you don't feel so well, then change it!0
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