Size 12 = Fat?

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.

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.

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."

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?? whatevs

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...

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.

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!

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.

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 12

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.