All 5'3" - 5'5" -- Let's compare weight w/pants size

Options
1…5681011…35

Replies

  • IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym
    IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym Posts: 5,573 Member
    Options
    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.
  • emmy3111
    emmy3111 Posts: 482 Member
    Options
    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...
  • jlbeals
    jlbeals Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    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. :\ 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)
  • victoriaannewilliams
    victoriaannewilliams Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    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 :)
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options
    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?
  • cwashkowiak
    cwashkowiak Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    5'4

    SW 245 size 20-22

    CW 206 size 16 (14 in some stores and 18 in others)
  • IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym
    IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym Posts: 5,573 Member
    Options
    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.
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options
    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?
  • IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym
    IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym Posts: 5,573 Member
    Options
    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.
  • roachhaley
    roachhaley Posts: 978 Member
    Options
    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.
  • marieautumn
    marieautumn Posts: 932 Member
    Options
    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.

    i'm pretty sure 27 inches is 27 inches no matter what its made of.
  • BABetter1
    BABetter1 Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    5'5" - started out at 216, size 16/18
    NOW - 175, size 12

    Me too. Well, started at 208, but same sizes and same current weight.
  • jlbeals
    jlbeals Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    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.

    i'm pretty sure 27 inches is 27 inches no matter what its made of.

    Me too - also I'm pretty sure fat and muscle don't weigh the same. Muscle weighs more than fat.
  • jconnolly528
    jconnolly528 Posts: 55
    Options
    SW: 1 month post baby- 182, size 14 (tight)
    CW: Nearly 6 months post baby- 149.5, size 10 (comfortably)
  • IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym
    IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym Posts: 5,573 Member
    Options
    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.


    Touche. So we're both right just saying different things. I guess I didn't list my measurements from before at 120 pounds wearing a size 6 to not too long ago 130 pounds wearing a size 2.

    But, to whoever said muscle weighs more than fat, no, I'm sorry. One pound is one pound. Muscle is more dense, though.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    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?

    if you would like i will take a picture of me wearing every size 2 pant I own, including brands since this is seems to be huge issue for you. The brands vary but all standard every day available companies...merona, old navy, american eagle etc. I'm not trying to be rude but it's not like I would have any reason to lie, I've been up to a size 14 and have no shame in admitting that.

    What i meant by body composition is shape. I'm high waisted so my waist size does not factor into sizing as much as someone who is perhaps short waisted. i'm also a seamstress and love to sew from vintage patterns. I've seen women with the same measurements but different sizes because of the curve and shape of their bodies.

    If this doesn't clear it up for you then there isn't much more I can do :)
  • ryansgram
    ryansgram Posts: 693 Member
    Options
    5'4" 127 size 4-6
  • libbygrammer
    libbygrammer Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    5'3" SW (a long time ago) 177, tight size 14
    5'3" CW 136, size 6
    have been in the past and will be again: 5'3" 125, size 4
  • jlbeals
    jlbeals Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    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.


    Touche. So we're both right just saying different things. I guess I didn't list my measurements from before at 120 pounds wearing a size 6 to not too long ago 130 pounds wearing a size 2.

    But, to whoever said muscle weighs more than fat, no, I'm sorry. One pound is one pound. Muscle is more dense, though.

    Sorry - I should have been more specific - Muscle IS denser - that's why the same volume of it weighs more than an equal volume of fat, and the argument was about inches (which is a volume) verses weight (which is a mass). If you fill a bucket with fat and the same sized bucket with muscle, the muscle bucket would weigh more - similar to filling a bucket with cotton verses a bucket with cement. The cement is going to weigh more even though they fit into the same sized bucket.
  • CrookedCrookster
    CrookedCrookster Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    5'5"
    CW: 132
    Size 8

Categories