Is it even possible for ANYONE to be a size 0/1?
Replies
-
I was a size 6 when I was in college...20 years ago. I am slightly larger/heavier than I was back then, yet I am currently wearing size 2 pants. I see many women who are much slimmer than me and wonder if they have to shop in the juniors department to find clothes that fit. That's not right.
Department stores/designers want you to say "Oooo, I'm so excited I can fit into these size 00 pants that I'm going to buy 3 pairs!" Slimey marketing techniques.
1 -
msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
4 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
My goodness, do you disappear when you turn sideways? Or are you not in the U.S.? I am the height and weight in your picture and look about that size (except I'd have to stuff the bra with foam or something to have those boobs) and size 10 US pants would just fall around my ankles. Do you know what your hip measurement was? I'm at about 37" and that's a pretty solid size 4 nowadays.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
My goodness, do you disappear when you turn sideways? Or are you not in the U.S.? I am the height and weight in your picture and look about that size (except I'd have to stuff the bra with foam or something to have those boobs) and size 10 US pants would just fall around my ankles. Do you know what your hip measurement was? I'm at about 37" and that's a pretty solid size 4 nowadays.
This is at size 10US. I have a wide pelvis and rib cage, so as I lose weight, my width stays the same (already as narrow as my ribcage and bi-iliac distance allows) and my "depth" gets smaller and smaller.
I think my hips were about 42" there. Right now I weigh 6 pounds less and they are 41.25"
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
Haha, what? You should feel secure enough to make a statement without projecting or putting words in my mouth.
Cute pic by the way. You look amazing.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
My goodness, do you disappear when you turn sideways? Or are you not in the U.S.? I am the height and weight in your picture and look about that size (except I'd have to stuff the bra with foam or something to have those boobs) and size 10 US pants would just fall around my ankles. Do you know what your hip measurement was? I'm at about 37" and that's a pretty solid size 4 nowadays.
My thoughts exactly but with her tone you can tell she isn't really in the mood to have a discussion, which is fine too.0 -
msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
I agree. I've hit my first goal. I've been overweight forever, and couldn't imagine being small (not that I am yet). At my highest I was 280, but spent most of my adult life at 250ish. I just wanted to get down to 180. I'm pretty much there, and I now realize I have a long way to go until I get the body I wanted.
I thought I'd look good at 180 because "I'm big boned" and "I have a lot of muscle". Not nearly as much as I thought; I still have a lot of fat.
Congrats on reaching your first goal! I took it one goal at a time. And each goal shocked me! I needed time to wrap my head around the size and numbers before pursuing another goal because I still couldn't believe it
0 -
My hips and ribcage are wide so even if I lose lots of weight I will be lucky if I get much lower than a UK 10 / US 60
-
I was small enough 4 yours ago that my size according to the clothing mfg was a zero.. I am now not so zero like any more..LOL LOL
And this hip expansion thing mentioned above does not exist.. my hips have not expanded except in fat and muscle which I did on purpose and I will be 48 in two months.
So who ever has that study or posted this 'truth', please post it..
That's not entirely true. I have a hard time believing that it's as she stated, that it's that pronounced in a significant amount of the population (I'd be interested in reading that study), but it is common in women who have been pregnant. I was at my all time lowest weight after my second daughter was born and my hips were 2" bigger...there's no way I could ever get to my pre-pregnancy hip measurement. Just like after pregnancy it's not uncommon to go up a shoe size because of ligament relaxing, hip expansion does exist. Hormones widen the pubic symphysis and SI joints and they don't always go back.
0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
Actually adults experience a hip width expansion of 1-2 inches between age 20 and 40. This corresponds to a circumference increase on average of 3 inches.
I'd be interested in reading that study. I know many fit people who are in their forties, fifties and sixties who are the same size they were in high school. A little change isn't bad, but several dress sizes isn't caused by a little hip expansion
Berger, A. A., May, R., Renner, J. B., Viradia, N. and Dahners, L. E. (2011), Surprising evidence of pelvic growth (widening) after skeletal maturity. J. Orthop. Res., 29: 1719–1723. doi: 10.1002/jor.21469
Here you go!
And the layman's news blurb coverage, which was surprisingly not bad:
Big Fat Truth: Hip Bones Widen With Age
1 -
msalicia116 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
Haha, what? You should feel secure enough to make a statement without projecting or putting words in my mouth.
Cute pic by the way. You look amazing.
Sorry if my post came off more harshly than intended, I was going for "wry", but I may have overshot.
I didn't take your post personally; I was just trying to make the point that there are people who *think* they can't fit into a zero but could at a slim and healthy size, and then there are the people (like me) for whom it truly is impossible.
Thanks for the pic comment, BTW. I was pretty hesitant to post it. With all the talk of "positive body dysmorphia" on the boards lately, part of me was bracing myself to be told I could stand to lose 20 lbs.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
Haha, what? You should feel secure enough to make a statement without projecting or putting words in my mouth.
Cute pic by the way. You look amazing.
Sorry if my post came off more harshly than intended, I was going for "wry", but I may have overshot.
I didn't take your post personally; I was just trying to make the point that there are people who *think* they can't fit into a zero but could at a slim and healthy size, and then there are the people (like me) for whom it truly is impossible.
Thanks for the pic comment, BTW. I was pretty hesitant to post it. With all the talk of "positive body dysmorphia" on the boards lately, part of me was bracing myself to be told I could stand to lose 20 lbs.
Well I personally think you look incredible! Keep doing whatever you're doing, it's working
2 -
Don't worry about clothing size numbers. They are BS. Just go by how you feel, be healthy and don't strive for teensy sizes.0
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
Actually adults experience a hip width expansion of 1-2 inches between age 20 and 40. This corresponds to a circumference increase on average of 3 inches.
I'd be interested in reading that study. I know many fit people who are in their forties, fifties and sixties who are the same size they were in high school. A little change isn't bad, but several dress sizes isn't caused by a little hip expansion
Berger, A. A., May, R., Renner, J. B., Viradia, N. and Dahners, L. E. (2011), Surprising evidence of pelvic growth (widening) after skeletal maturity. J. Orthop. Res., 29: 1719–1723. doi: 10.1002/jor.21469
Here you go!
And the layman's news blurb coverage, which was surprisingly not bad:
Big Fat Truth: Hip Bones Widen With Age
Very interesting! I'm curious if a longitudinal study would show the same results. Instead of sampling different people at different ages, following the same people throughout their lives.
I couldn't get your first link to work found this abstract by googling:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21608025/0 -
0
-
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
Ah that would be me then, I wasn't having a go at anyone at all. I also don't like the bodybuilder/physique look, is there a rule out there that I should?
I don't personally know anyone who is a size 0, just what I see through the media and the unfortunate souls who I look after who are probably a size 00000. I just wrongly assumed you couldn't be a size 0 without starving. This site has shown me that you can be healthy & a size 0
You probably know several people who are 0s...but most people don't go around announcing their clothing sizes, apart from around MFP, haha.
I'm going to look for a full body photo of me so you can see what "size 0" actually looks like, because I think you'll be very surprised. I look generally pretty rounded and curvy, even kind of chubby around the thighs/arms/face right now, but I'm still wearing 0s due to narrow frame and vanity sizing.
ETA: click behind the spoiler and you'll see a photo of me in an XS top and a size 0 skirt, and you'll see that you don't have to look super thin to be in those sizes.
It's not a flattering photo and I can make myself look more slender in the right clothes and the right angles, but it's just to demonstrate that plenty of people you see day-to-day are being sized into 0s thanks to the way clothing sizes are exploding. I wonder every time I shop what truly skinny people do for clothing. Tailor, buy designer, order from Asia, or swim in their clothes, I guess.
Thanks for posting this. You look like a size 10, maybe an 8, in Aussie sizes. Which rest assured is pretty small.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »msalicia116 wrote: »I remember in high school dreaming about being a "perfect size 7". But never thought it would be possible because of my "frame". The idea of even being 125 seemed like an impossibility.
If I told myself at 33 I would be 113lbs and a 0/00, there's no way I would have believed it.
I think it's hard for people to wrap their head around a size if they've been heavier most of their lives. And even more so if they've gained weight as they've aged or when they've had kids. That's why it's so common to hear, "I was that size at 16" or "I've had kids, I can never be that size again" blah blah
Blah.
Nothing seems possible until it is.
Or, they truly don't have the frame size to fit a size 0. It's not that uncommon.
In the picture below, I am a size 10, and 22BMI. To get to size zero from there would entail losing 5 inches from my bust, 4 inches from my waist, and nearly 7 from my hips. At the bottom of my healthy BMI range, I am a size 6. In the kickboxing photos in my profile, I was 5'9", 135, and size 8.
Maybe you're right and I'm just a fat lady kidding myself, but I really don't think I was 5 sizes too big in this picture.
Haha, what? You should feel secure enough to make a statement without projecting or putting words in my mouth.
Cute pic by the way. You look amazing.
Sorry if my post came off more harshly than intended, I was going for "wry", but I may have overshot.
I didn't take your post personally; I was just trying to make the point that there are people who *think* they can't fit into a zero but could at a slim and healthy size, and then there are the people (like me) for whom it truly is impossible.
Thanks for the pic comment, BTW. I was pretty hesitant to post it. With all the talk of "positive body dysmorphia" on the boards lately, part of me was bracing myself to be told I could stand to lose 20 lbs.
Absolutely not @MakePeasNotWar ! You look just right, you dont need to lose 1 pound more
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
Ah that would be me then, I wasn't having a go at anyone at all. I also don't like the bodybuilder/physique look, is there a rule out there that I should?
I don't personally know anyone who is a size 0, just what I see through the media and the unfortunate souls who I look after who are probably a size 00000. I just wrongly assumed you couldn't be a size 0 without starving. This site has shown me that you can be healthy & a size 0
You probably know several people who are 0s...but most people don't go around announcing their clothing sizes, apart from around MFP, haha.
I'm going to look for a full body photo of me so you can see what "size 0" actually looks like, because I think you'll be very surprised. I look generally pretty rounded and curvy, even kind of chubby around the thighs/arms/face right now, but I'm still wearing 0s due to narrow frame and vanity sizing.
ETA: click behind the spoiler and you'll see a photo of me in an XS top and a size 0 skirt, and you'll see that you don't have to look super thin to be in those sizes.
It's not a flattering photo and I can make myself look more slender in the right clothes and the right angles, but it's just to demonstrate that plenty of people you see day-to-day are being sized into 0s thanks to the way clothing sizes are exploding. I wonder every time I shop what truly skinny people do for clothing. Tailor, buy designer, order from Asia, or swim in their clothes, I guess.
Thanks for posting this. You look like a size 10, maybe an 8, in Aussie sizes. Which rest assured is pretty small.
I'm not worried about my size, I know I'm a healthy weight at 5'4" and 118 lbs and about 33-23-34 most of the time (that particular photo might have been an inch larger as it was near the end of my honeymoon and I'd been pigging out pretty hard). Checking size charts online it looks like I'd be more like a 6 AUS, but my point was really that you don't necessarily have to look skinny to be in small clothes sizes depending on your build and body composition. I've got a small frame so any and all additional fat shows really clearly on me and I can look chubby even if my measurements are small. YKWIM?
Mostly, I just want to reiterate that clothing sizes are incredibly meaningless and I think it's pretty foolish to aim for a certain size, as it doesn't really have any bearing on what your body actually looks like. My chunky little frame is not at all what people think of as "size 0", but still, I'm wearing the smallest size available at a lot of stores. Meanwhile we have someone upthread who looks maybe more slender than I do who's wearing a 10, so go figure...0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
Actually adults experience a hip width expansion of 1-2 inches between age 20 and 40. This corresponds to a circumference increase on average of 3 inches.
I'd be interested in reading that study. I know many fit people who are in their forties, fifties and sixties who are the same size they were in high school. A little change isn't bad, but several dress sizes isn't caused by a little hip expansion
Berger, A. A., May, R., Renner, J. B., Viradia, N. and Dahners, L. E. (2011), Surprising evidence of pelvic growth (widening) after skeletal maturity. J. Orthop. Res., 29: 1719–1723. doi: 10.1002/jor.21469
Here you go!
And the layman's news blurb coverage, which was surprisingly not bad:
Big Fat Truth: Hip Bones Widen With Age
Very interesting! I'm curious if a longitudinal study would show the same results. Instead of sampling different people at different ages, following the same people throughout their lives.
I couldn't get your first link to work found this abstract by googling:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21608025/
Thanks for the correct link. I am also curious about further studies. The summary listed above mentioned the 3 inch spread was from age 20 to 79 in the sample, but didn't adjust for gender. In any event that hits me as believable, but certainly wouldn't account for major weight gain over a short period. This hits me as something pretty insignificant when compared to current levels of obesity. I'll read the study tonight.
ETA: curious what they did to account for childbirth and at what degree things accelerated after age 60. We know there's a major drop in hormone levels in men after 60, and menopause for women. Should be an interesting read!0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Sorry but can we stop referencing a size 0 as a teenager's size/body? I'm a size 0 and a 31 year old woman. I'm not starving, I'm not sick, and I'm not killing myself to maintain it. It's the frame I was born with and the body I've built through hard work. When I was a teenager I was a size 13 to 16. Not everyone has to be a size 0, but the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at the size is a bit much. I'm not targeting any poster in particular but I've noticed overall there seems to be an aura of vitriol regarding the size. It's a tad offputting.
I just re-read the thread to see if I missed something, but as far as I can see, nobody disparaged size 0 or implied it was for teens only.
I think you might be reading into people's comments too much, because I honestly don't see anything I'd call hostile.
Edited to add: If my posts seemed to you or anyone as if I were implying only a skeleton would fit into a size 0, that isn't at all what I was talking about. I was referencing my own bone structure, which is tall and broad. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you felt like I was taking a swipe at you or anyone else.
Not you at all. Many posters in this thread have been fine. Just a few references to being a teen's body, people aspiring to weird things due to size 0, and someone saying they don't like the size 0 "look" are a few that come to mind. If I said I didn't like the size 14 "look", more than half of the women in America would want my head on a stick. There were a few other threads where the size was mentioned in such a way.
I absolutely understand part of the disdain due to societal standards but I just wanted to throw it out there because sometimes on this board, and in real life, I get subtly and not-so-subtly reminded that my size makes people think I starve or I'm less of a woman because I have no "shape" when I do or that it's not a "woman's shape" because no woman that has had kids can be a size 0 which is not only untrue but falsely ties being a mother to being a woman. Size 0 is a stupid as hell size (thanks America!) but is still a size.
One size doesn't fit all thankfully and that's definitely what the takeaway of this thread is about overall.
Ah that would be me then, I wasn't having a go at anyone at all. I also don't like the bodybuilder/physique look, is there a rule out there that I should?
I don't personally know anyone who is a size 0, just what I see through the media and the unfortunate souls who I look after who are probably a size 00000. I just wrongly assumed you couldn't be a size 0 without starving. This site has shown me that you can be healthy & a size 0
You probably know several people who are 0s...but most people don't go around announcing their clothing sizes, apart from around MFP, haha.
I'm going to look for a full body photo of me so you can see what "size 0" actually looks like, because I think you'll be very surprised. I look generally pretty rounded and curvy, even kind of chubby around the thighs/arms/face right now, but I'm still wearing 0s due to narrow frame and vanity sizing.
ETA: click behind the spoiler and you'll see a photo of me in an XS top and a size 0 skirt, and you'll see that you don't have to look super thin to be in those sizes.
It's not a flattering photo and I can make myself look more slender in the right clothes and the right angles, but it's just to demonstrate that plenty of people you see day-to-day are being sized into 0s thanks to the way clothing sizes are exploding. I wonder every time I shop what truly skinny people do for clothing. Tailor, buy designer, order from Asia, or swim in their clothes, I guess.
Thanks for posting this. You look like a size 10, maybe an 8, in Aussie sizes. Which rest assured is pretty small.
I'm not worried about my size, I know I'm a healthy weight at 5'4" and 118 lbs and about 33-23-34 most of the time (that particular photo might have been an inch larger as it was near the end of my honeymoon and I'd been pigging out pretty hard). Checking size charts online it looks like I'd be more like a 6 AUS, but my point was really that you don't necessarily have to look skinny to be in small clothes sizes depending on your build and body composition. I've got a small frame so any and all additional fat shows really clearly on me and I can look chubby even if my measurements are small. YKWIM?
Mostly, I just want to reiterate that clothing sizes are incredibly meaningless and I think it's pretty foolish to aim for a certain size, as it doesn't really have any bearing on what your body actually looks like. My chunky little frame is not at all what people think of as "size 0", but still, I'm wearing the smallest size available at a lot of stores. Meanwhile we have someone upthread who looks maybe more slender than I do who's wearing a 10, so go figure...
Well that just goes to show how good i am at visually guessing sizes lol I've never met anyone in real life who wears a size 6. Like i mentioned earlier, not even my short skinny daughter fit in a 6 as a teenager0 -
Hey!:) Just to kind of echo everyone else, it completely depends. I used to struggle with anorexia and lost a ton of weight. I didn't fit into a 00 until I hit 93 lbs at 5'6 and my body was practically shutting down from being so underweight at that point. That's definitely not to say a 00 can't be healthy for someone else, but at my height and build aspiring for such a small pant size was dangerously impractical.2
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »What every person can or cannot do isn't really relevant to your situation. Your bones didn't grow. Yes, you can get down to your former weight. If you've gained a significant amount of muscle mass then you may not want to, but significant extra weight is not a necessary component of aging.
Actually adults experience a hip width expansion of 1-2 inches between age 20 and 40. This corresponds to a circumference increase on average of 3 inches.
I'd be interested in reading that study. I know many fit people who are in their forties, fifties and sixties who are the same size they were in high school. A little change isn't bad, but several dress sizes isn't caused by a little hip expansion
Berger, A. A., May, R., Renner, J. B., Viradia, N. and Dahners, L. E. (2011), Surprising evidence of pelvic growth (widening) after skeletal maturity. J. Orthop. Res., 29: 1719–1723. doi: 10.1002/jor.21469
Here you go!
And the layman's news blurb coverage, which was surprisingly not bad:
Big Fat Truth: Hip Bones Widen With Age
Very interesting! I'm curious if a longitudinal study would show the same results. Instead of sampling different people at different ages, following the same people throughout their lives.
I couldn't get your first link to work found this abstract by googling:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21608025/
Thanks for the correct link. I am also curious about further studies. The summary listed above mentioned the 3 inch spread was from age 20 to 79 in the sample, but didn't adjust for gender. In any event that hits me as believable, but certainly wouldn't account for major weight gain over a short period. This hits me as something pretty insignificant when compared to current levels of obesity. I'll read the study tonight.
ETA: curious what they did to account for childbirth and at what degree things accelerated after age 60. We know there's a major drop in hormone levels in men after 60, and menopause for women. Should be an interesting read!
The study shows the spread is less for females at 17mm versus 22mm for males over a 60 year period. It's certainly interesting, but this isn't going to have a major impact on clothing sizes.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions