"Who's NOT Overweight?"
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.
Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.
I am short, and always have been. I have been fat since age 10. As I became an adult, I noticed it is really difficult to find pants at the right length. Furthermore, in the event that I did find pants of the right length (or close enough, anyway), the waist was either way too big or way too small. Now that I am a healthy weight, I can find pants in the right waist size. It is the smallest available off the rack. However, I want to lose another 10 lbs. and will have to custom order pants if/when I finally reach goal.
As a fellow shortie, I can empathize with the pants length thing. When I buy yoga pants, capris come down to my ankle, and "ankle length" pants envelope my foot.1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But there are massive health risks to being underweight as well, and yet that has been the norm and pressure in women's fashion and fashion advertising for decades.
ETA I have never understood why women's clothes can't just be sized in inches like mens'.
agreed, their sizes make more sense1 -
I'm a nurse and work in the hospital, and I must say alot of people on my ward (workers and patients alike) are over weight - even some of the doctors too. Seems normality! I have around 2 stone to lose, feel free to add me
1 -
It sounds like women's clothing sizes are confusing a lot of people. Here's how it works:
Background on human body sizes
1. Consumers fall on a slightly skewed normal distribution, with a median size that stops the most, and approximately equal numbers of people in the neighboring sides.
2. The tail of distribution towards larger sizes is a bit larger because just as with bmi, there is a limit to how small the vast majority of people can be and survive (we're limited by skeletons) but there's no hard upper limit although the numbers of individuals drop the farther away from the median you go.
Clothing Manufacturers
1. In most developed nations, a trade association or government board sets general reference clothing sizes across the industry
2. These sizes are generally determined by measuring a lot of people and figuring out the distribution of body sizes.
3. Specifically for women, it has been tradition to call the middle, most common, size 10.
4. This makes sense for placing pattern pieces in cloth to get the most cuts. Because there are approximately equal numbers of people one size up and one size down, they pair 12 & 8 to cut, and 14 & 6, 16 & 4.
5. If you set your median size correctly, you've now accounted for at least 1 and hopefully 2 standard deviations, maximizing your clothing sales and pattern placing.
6. Every nation has a different set of standards based on their population.
7. They want to sell clothes to as many women as practical.
Clothing Designers & Retailers
2. The people who design clothes and those who sell them are not the same as the manufacturers.
3. They also look at the specific demographics of their target and actual customers and adjust sizing accordingly. They may tweak waist-to-hip ratios, arm and leg sizes, bust proportions, necklines, all to get a better foot for their audience. They take into account body shapes more carefully.
Measuring Women
This is where things get complicated
1. Almost all men fit into 3 body types. This has been true historically and remains true. It is largely due to the predictable effect of male growth hormones and testosterone
2. Women can be classified into many more body types. Depending on how they divide had up, there are between 12 and 23 different sets of ratios for body measurements for women
3. This high variability is a result of the very different and fluctuating levels of female reproductive hormones in and after puberty, and also genetic pressures.
4. A lot of historical measurements only took into account a very small percentage of women. The earliest standards only included young white women working in factories at the start of the 20th century. These women were generally poor, did not get much exercise, had poor nutrition in youth, and were mostly recent immigrants from Baltic nations. That meant the earliest pattern sizes did not well - represent the population even then. They did represent the measured demographic, though.
5. Over the decades, the ASTM (American Society of Textile Manufacturers) has commissioned several more studiea. Slowly a broader swath of the population had been included.
6. Unsurprisingly this led to larger sizes.
7. Unfortunately, because the shape variability is so large, the general fit of clothes has not improved because they still try to fit all women's sizing into 2 types (3 if you count juniors/petite).
8. This larger sizing an effect that is caused by including women of color, rural women, and older women in measurements.
A growing population
1. The average woman is now taller and heavier than in 1900
2. The skewed tail in most European counties and America towards larger sizes is larger.
3. Clothing manufacturers and retailers still want to sell as many clothes as they reasonably can.
4. They adjust their sizing to reflect their customers
Vanity has almost nothing to do with any of this. People act like it's some moral thing, and it isn't.41 -
Interesting, @tomteboda. I still wish they would pick a set of inch measurements (let's say bust and waist for tops and dresses, waist and inside leg for trousers). The clothes still wouldn't fit us properly, but at least it wouldn't all be such a desperate gamble!2
-
So recently there was an article about a woman who shopped at H&M. She was so offended that she barely fit into a size 12 there when in fact she wears a size 6-8 elsewhere. When stores such as this sells clothes that are more true to size (I have to wear 4 or 6 there) women get obviously upset and do not wish to buy there. That is why some brands started to vanity size so that larger women would feel smaller. This accommodation I believe gives them a false sense that they are not that big.6
-
But places like H&M just stick size labels on more out less at random. If the size happens to be more accurate, it's only by accident. I bought a 3-pack of tights out of Matalan once and they were all visibly different sizes.3
-
So recently there was an article about a woman who shopped at H&M. She was so offended that she barely fit into a size 12 there when in fact she wears a size 6-8 elsewhere. When stores such as this sells clothes that are more true to size (I have to wear 4 or 6 there) women get obviously upset and do not wish to buy there. That is why some brands started to vanity size so that larger women would feel smaller. This accommodation I believe gives them a false sense that they are not that big.
i was a size uk 18/20 few years back and there is no magic clothes out there that would have made me feel small even the darkest of black.2 -
I'm a stay at home parent, the majority of other parents at my eldests school are normal weight. There are 2 very super oebese mothers, and one obese father, then me who is also obese. The rest vary between average and slim.
I see more slim people about because, well, I guess they are more confident to go out in public?
This is in New Zealand.
We don't appear to have a vanity sizing issue, but I see it online in some groups I am in with American ladies. They say they are a 2XL when here, they would be like a XXXXXL, I'm talking women who weigh 300 pounds. I am 180 pounds and am an XL in most clothes. Some a 2XL.1 -
@tomteboda Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic post. I started something like it (nowhere near as good) last night, and then just deleted it because I couldn't face explaining any of it.7
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.
Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.
I actually think it does contribute to the problem. Size 00/0 used to be meant for very thin people, now most healthy weight people fit into 0. The vanity sizing gives overweight people the impression they really aren't "that big" and reinforces the idea they are normal and that being overweight is normal because "hey I'm only a size ___". And I agree with you I can hardly find clothes that fit anymore. My mom gave me some of her old clothes from the 80s/90s and the size 4-6 fits snug. However, I now have to find 000/00 and xs in today's ridiculous vanity sizing. It disgusts me that as a country we are normalizing obesity more and more every year. I agree vanity sizing and all these 'plus size' campaigns show people "hey this is what normal is and it's completely fine to be this way".
I get your point, but I completely disagree that "most healthy weight people fit into 0". That might be true for shorter women, but at 5'9" and 21 BMI, I wear US 8 or 10. My underweight friend with Chron's wears a 4 or 6 at 5'8" and 113 lbs.12 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.
Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.
I actually think it does contribute to the problem. Size 00/0 used to be meant for very thin people, now most healthy weight people fit into 0. The vanity sizing gives overweight people the impression they really aren't "that big" and reinforces the idea they are normal and that being overweight is normal because "hey I'm only a size ___". And I agree with you I can hardly find clothes that fit anymore. My mom gave me some of her old clothes from the 80s/90s and the size 4-6 fits snug. However, I now have to find 000/00 and xs in today's ridiculous vanity sizing. It disgusts me that as a country we are normalizing obesity more and more every year. I agree vanity sizing and all these 'plus size' campaigns show people "hey this is what normal is and it's completely fine to be this way".
I get your point, but I completely disagree that "most healthy weight people fit into 0". That might be true for shorter women, but at 5'9" and 21 BMI, I wear US 8 or 10. My underweight friend with Chron's wears a 4 or 6 at 5'8" and 113 lbs.
I am 5'8 bmi 18.7 (Also crohn's) and wear a 6. When I was bmi 16 i wore size 4.4 -
It sounds like women's clothing sizes are confusing a lot of people. Here's how it works:
Background on human body sizes
(snipped by reply-er for brevity)
Vanity has almost nothing to do with any of this. People act like it's some moral thing, and it isn't.
This needs to be repeated often.
As a short person, I do wish the population weren't so danged tall, though.
14 -
Yeah, I missed the whole "healthy weight people fit into size 0" thing. I was taking @Noreenmarie1234 seriously but that makes me rethink my position.
Don't be daft.6 -
This is true. There are a few shops that have a problem with quality control over their sizing, and H&M is one of them. It's not "vanity sizing".CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But places like H&M just stick size labels on more out less at random. If the size happens to be more accurate, it's only by accident. I bought a 3-pack of tights out of Matalan once and they were all visibly different sizes.
Marks & Spencer is another one. I tried on a pair of trousers once that were a perfect fit, length and width wise. The size? Size 10, Long. I'm 5 foot 2.
4 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
This is true. There are a few shops that have a problem with quality control over their sizing, and H&M is one of them. It's not "vanity sizing".CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But places like H&M just stick size labels on more out less at random. If the size happens to be more accurate, it's only by accident. I bought a 3-pack of tights out of Matalan once and they were all visibly different sizes.
Marks & Spencer is another one. I tried on a pair of trousers once that were a perfect fit, length and width wise. The size? Size 10, Long. I'm 5 foot 2.
Funnily enough I would always have named marks & sparks as one of the more reliable ones. Apparently not so.0 -
As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.4 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Yeah, I missed the whole "healthy weight people fit into size 0" thing. I was taking @Noreenmarie1234 seriously but that makes me rethink my position.
Don't be daft.
I guess I should of said "many" instead of most. I know quite a few people with BMI 19-21 who wear 00-2 (although, they do like to wear tight fitting clothing) and it was pretty surprising to me that BMI 20-21 were size 00 and 0 since you think of those absurdly small sizes being for short people or those who are extremely thin. I just meant to illustrate the point that a lot of people in the healthy weight range fit into the extremely small sizes that used to be meant for the extremely thin and/or petite in the past.
I was thinking about this a bit more and was thinking about exactly what @tomteboda mentioned. It is just a response to the growing population. With more of american lying towards the overweight category they HAVE to either change the sizes so that the distribution is correct, or create new bigger sizes. And if I was a store I would rather vanity size because it really does encourage people to buy rather than from stores true to size. I know my overweight aunt for example refuses to buy anything over a size 14 so she won't stop at stores that run truer to size and only shops at places that "run large".
But people in the healthy weight range only makeup 30% of the population now, and even then, most of them are probably at the higher end of the BMI range. I just think it is such a shame we are having to vanity size and making it normal.3 -
Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
Using the other metric we discussed, waist to height, you're fine. You're 71.5 inches tall, more than double your waist.
2 -
Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
I have always had "at risk" because of my hip/waist ratio, but because I have TINY hips. My waist is 27 (even when I was quite underweight) and my hips are 30. But I am much shorter.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions