Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Options
Replies
-
joemac1988 wrote: »
I'll quote myself...
"People's ignorance about how and why CICO works, does not stop it from working..."
–Moi...11 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
Very interesting. I wear a 00/0 but according to this I am a size 14 via waist measurement but below the smallest size for hip. Gosh I am weirdly proportioned....0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
Wasn't it something ridiculous like 100 middle-class younger white women that they used as the standard?0 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »rebbylicious wrote: »The idea that Size 12 is the average sized woman , so that must make it ok. (As a former size 12-14) is something I disagree with. I am currently a size 8 and know that my weight for height is actually on the high end of the healthy weight range.
I'm not challenging what you're saying, your comment just makes me think of how ridiculous it is to measure someone by 'size X'. Not that I think you were doing this, but it also bugs me when people say size X is too big for a healthy person. Sorry, but body type, skeletal structure, and height go a long way towards size - not just how much fat a person happens to have.
I still have about 20ish (maybe 25) pounds to lose, but I can guarantee you that a size 12 will look much different on me at 5'7" than it will on someone who is 5'4" (for example). It will probably look much different on me at 5'7" than it would on someone with a more slender build who is also 5'7". I have wide shoulders and hip bones that balance out my proportions no matter what my size better than some women who have narrower body types. Size 'X' is meaningless as a comparative tool.
Size 12 may be the average woman in the US, and it's perfectly acceptable for many, many women. FWIW, even at a near normal BMI at my lowest weight, I was a size 12 in some things *shrug*.
Yeah, all this.
I look awful when a size 12 (US sizes, and even the US sizes of my early adult years), but that doesn't mean other women don't fit in them when at a healthy weight.
Very true. Musculature matters a lot. I am into weight lifting so my shoulders are wider than average and my quads/glutes are well developed. I need a larger size than my waist suggests, not because I am not fatter, just built different. Note that I usually have to get something that looks good belted, is stretchy on the waist (so it forms), or have it tailored. Height also plays a huge factor. A woman who is 5'3" and a size 12 is a vastly different shape than a woman who is 5'10" and a size 12.
you know a size for woman's jeans doesn't just pertain to the waist right??? a size 6 (what I wear normally) is bigger all around...not just the waist.
I think that's the point (or the problem): We're - many of us - proportioned differently. For some of us, with respect to the same style/brand of pants, if the waist fits, the hips will be loose. For others, they'd have to pick the size that fits their hips, but the waist would be loose. I even know some very muscular women for whom quad size is the limiting factor in many styles.
None of these things are necessarily due to body fat: At BMI 19-20 (which I'd estimate as low to mid 20s BF%), my waist is 26.5-27. For others my height (5'5"), their waist might be at 22-23" with similar BMI/BF. I'd have to be skeletal to get to 22-23". But I have boy hips, about 34" at that weight. This theoretical other woman might have woman hips, maybe 36" or more.
Musculature counts, as @VeronicaA76 noted. So do more inherent skeletal differences: Pelvic width, ribcage volume, shoulder breadth, etc.
Breast size also varies widely in women, though that obviously doesn't affect pant size. But that and shoulders affect tops, as does arm musculature at times. In one brand of t-shirts I like, tanks fit fine in S, and XS will fit if the specific style isn't too short. Things with sleeves fit tolerably in M - S is hopelessly narrow in shoulders and armholes - and the shoulder line falls at the right place in a L. Some jackets/sweaters would need to be a L for my arms (not waif-like) to fit and still bend comfortably.
"Size 12" means little or nothing, on its own, as a criterion for reasonable body size.
actually size 12 does mean something...
for example a size 12 jean is made to fit a person with a waist that measures 34.5 inches...a 10...32.5 inches...etc.
and for women in the US
http://www.sizeguide.net/size-guide-women-size-chart.html
so given that information (and yes knowing people are all different) a woman with a size 12...aka 34.5 inch waist..that is not healthy.
and I expect that lots of woman if not most who are a size 12 fall in that frame...over 33 inches in the waist but less than 36....
Although high waisted styles are starting to be in fashion more these days, most jeans don't actually sit at someone's waist. That 34.5 is probably several inches below a woman's natural waist. Again, using size '12' as a metric for Healthy across the board is ridiculous.
Just a ridiculous as using a size 12 as a metric for fat across the board.
That is the point I was trying to make
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
and I guess this is my point...the average woman is now a 14-16...so that means in today's sizes...
so a size 12 60 years ago was really a 16 or higher...
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
Yes, according to the chart I'm 16 by waist, 14 by hips (2 1/2" difference between hips and waist - I'm tube-shaped from my ribs down.) I don't even try to buy pants that fit around my waist, and in real life wear a 6-8 in mid-rise jeans. (In the Talbot's alternate universe I wear a size 0 - 2).2 -
Nothing to do with health, and everything to do with people's hang-ups about what size they are: I believe no one can read the tags while you are wearing the clothes, so who cares what size# they are? Get something that fits properly and is flattering and you will look ten times better than buying a smaller size just because you are stubborn.19
-
And a good thing too. If you want to be actually able to buy clothes.amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
It's one thing for dressmaking patterns to have a specific set of measurements; if you're choosing to make your own clothes, you're probably able to adjust the bust or hips in or out to fit yourself
If you're a store selling clothes, you want to sell them to fit the shoppers, and the shoppers are not all going to magically have the body shape with the much lauded ten inch difference twix waist and hip that used to be taught as fricking holy gospel in sewing.
If you're a customer who wants to buy clothes, who can't sew, universal standardisation across stores would either see you able to buy everywhere, or... nowhere.
Government regulation on clothing sizes would be very restrictive here.
2 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese
? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population. 8 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
Mainly fatter;
Overall weight gain since 1960 is slightly greater for women (18.5 percent) than for men (17.6 percent). And both sexes have gained roughly an inch in height over the same period, which accounts for some of that weight gain.
But story is mostly one of growing girth, and it basically boils down to three factors: we're eating less healthy food, we're eating more of it, and we're not moving around as much. According to a study published in 2012 in the journal BMC Public Health, Americans are now the world's third-heaviest people, behind only the Pacific island nations of Tonga and Micronesia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/?utm_term=.db49484ae5a62 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.5 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
And a good thing too. If you want to be actually able to buy clothes.amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
It's one thing for dressmaking patterns to have a specific set of measurements; if you're choosing to make your own clothes, you're probably able to adjust the bust or hips in or out to fit yourself
If you're a store selling clothes, you want to sell them to fit the shoppers, and the shoppers are not all going to magically have the body shape with the much lauded ten inch difference twix waist and hip that used to be taught as fricking holy gospel in sewing.
If you're a customer who wants to buy clothes, who can't sew, universal standardisation across stores would either see you able to buy everywhere, or... nowhere.
Government regulation on clothing sizes would be very restrictive here.
I don't think you understand what the size standards mean. These are the physical measurements of the person the garment is made to fit, NOT the actual measurements of the garment. Ease, style, and proportion are built into the garment during design and manufacture which is what allows for variations in actual women.
0 -
The whole "love yourself no matter the size" argument doesn't hold up in my book either because I have never seen someone say another person is unworthy of love because they are fat. Anyone who would say that is a hateful jerk that I am positive would hate on other people for other ridiculous reasons as well.....A smoker could argue they are healthy and point to blood work and tests as proof of that, but in the long run, the odds are it will catch up to them somehow.
I will say that as a severely obese person who has been such pretty much my whole life, while people may not SAY I'm unworthy of love to my face, the concept is there, everywhere I look and has been drilled into me since I was a child. You see it in the joke cards section of Hallmark, you hear it in the comedy routines of the standups, you see it displayed in movies and television, you see it in books and magazines, video games.....The heroine is always young, is always skinny, beautiful, etc, the hero is always handsome, well built, we could go on and on. The only time you see a larger person as the lead, they're always shown as being somewhat dorky, nerdy, and stumbling into the situation - and it's usually a comedy.
And the constant mantra of "fat isn't healthy" doesn't help. An honest obese person knows that their extra weight increases their risks of damaging their health- we don't need that constantly thrown up in our faces. I've seen several videos and articles by larger folks talking about learning to accept themselves - accept that their weight doesn't define who they are as a person, and I will definitely say, again as an obese person myself - that the comments below such vidoes and articles are always disheartening, because they will almost always to a person critically assert that the speaker/writer shouldn't accept themselves because they are obese, and being obese is unhealthy. That constant mantra says to me "I am not acceptable as a person in society because I am not healthy" and that is a major stumbling block that I have to deal with, because I very much struggle with self image and detesting the person I am based upon my body weight - and that's because I was trained to do so from childhood.
I'm not a member of the fat acceptance movement and I think it's ridiculous to shame other people because they are skinny or to expect everyone out there to embrace you, and I know that my weight lowers the quality of life I have and increases the RISK of future health problems - and that's a large reason why I'm here attempting to lose the extra weight again. BUT that's the point - its the RISK factor that is increased; its not guaranteed that every single person who is obese or overweight will go on to develop diabetes, heart problems, etc. Just like there are some smokers out there that will never develop lung cancer even though they smoked 4 packs a day for 50 years. You CAN be obese and have healthy bloodwork numbers - I'm proof of that and have had no problems whatsover in 30 years - but the chances of it staying that way diminish with your size and age. However, there are some folks who do live their lives obese and have relatively few problems. It's all statistics, averages, and probability - it's not a guarantee, though the higher your risk, the more likely the odds are going to be against you. The changes of winning the power ball are 1 in 175 million. Does that mean that no one ever wins? of course not. If a person remains obese does that guarantee they are going to suffer from diabetes or have a heart attack or stroke? No, it does not guarantee it, though the odds of course go up and are stacked against them the heavier they are. And yes, I also acknowledge that there is a point where it becomes a statistical certainty - it's just that point isn't anywhere near where most people are these days.
It's it a good idea to carry around extra pounds? No, and I'm not saying that. Of course folks who are extremely overweight should consider losing that weight, even if their health numbers are normal, because the odds of them developing serious medical problems will go down. Their joints will thank them for it at the least, and being at a normal weight does make life easier. But I also know, as an obese person, that it's not easy, my body fights against me, and the odds of success are absolutely in the tank. So even though the chances I'll succeed are only around 5%, I'm still willing to try. But if my doctor can celebrate even a modest loss of weight in the right direction, shouldn't I also be able to celebrate that and consider it a success, even if I never get down to a "healthy" BMI or waist measurement?
And besides, the fact that no one can disagree with is whether your are healthy or unhealthy, underweight, normal, overweight, or obese, we are all going to die eventually - the risk for that is 100%.....10 -
Au contraire, mon amie.HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
And a good thing too. If you want to be actually able to buy clothes.amusedmonkey wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?
Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.
In the UK:
1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers
2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028
3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/
4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect
5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide
This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:
This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.
That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.
And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.
It's one thing for dressmaking patterns to have a specific set of measurements; if you're choosing to make your own clothes, you're probably able to adjust the bust or hips in or out to fit yourself
If you're a store selling clothes, you want to sell them to fit the shoppers, and the shoppers are not all going to magically have the body shape with the much lauded ten inch difference twix waist and hip that used to be taught as fricking holy gospel in sewing.
If you're a customer who wants to buy clothes, who can't sew, universal standardisation across stores would either see you able to buy everywhere, or... nowhere.
Government regulation on clothing sizes would be very restrictive here.
I don't think you understand what the size standards mean. These are the physical measurements of the person the garment is made to fit, NOT the actual measurements of the garment. Ease, style, and proportion are built into the garment during design and manufacture which is what allows for variations in actual women. I know exactly what the size standards mean, and that is my point. If manufacturers were legally required to cut clothes to fit women of those measurements, many women would be left with nowhere to shop. Women, as a national population, vary a lot in shape. I recognise the measurements pictured- they're, as mentioned, ye olde Women have Ten Inches Difference Between Hip and Waist ones. Really does not universally apply to the modern western woman, if it ever did.
P.S. I knit, crochet, sew and cross-stitch.
4 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »And the constant mantra of "fat isn't healthy" doesn't help. An honest obese person knows that their extra weight increases their risks of damaging their health- we don't need that constantly thrown up in our faces. I've seen several videos and articles by larger folks talking about learning to accept themselves - accept that their weight doesn't define who they are as a person, and I will definitely say, again as an obese person myself - that the comments below such vidoes and articles are always disheartening, because they will almost always to a person critically assert that the speaker/writer shouldn't accept themselves because they are obese, and being obese is unhealthy. That constant mantra says to me "I am not acceptable as a person in society because I am not healthy" and that is a major stumbling block that I have to deal with, because I very much struggle with self image and detesting the person I am based upon my body weight - and that's because I was trained to do so from childhood.
This was my point. Healthy At Every Size simply is untrue. I am not saying that it needs to be thrown in people's faces every second of the day, but let's not pretend that it isn't an issue and try to normalize it. I brought up smoking because we don't try to normalize smoking. In fact the percentage of the population who smokes today is way down because efforts were taken to crack down on it, between banning it in public places, and taxing it, and repeatedly pointing out that it is detrimental to ones health. You pointed out that an obese person can potentially live without health issues, and although that is true, it is also true for a smoker. The point is both groups are at a far greater risk for health issues and I don't think we should just remain silent, or try to normalize it so we don't hurt people's feelings.0 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.4 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.
That makes sense, I didn't see the statement you were responding to, but understand you taking exception to it. I just know as a man, I wouldn't really have much of an idea, or to be honest care what a woman's dress size was. If you are healthy and feel confident and comfortable then it shouldn't really matter what size you wear.2 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
I couldn't agree more! What I was addressing stemmed from a post saying (essentially) "size 12 is too fat, and it's scary that the average women is so big". Several other posts chimed in saying that size 12 = obese. It's my own personal interpretation, but I don't think that 'overfat' = obese. Sure, it can on the upper side of the scale, but it can also be overweight. I'm currently at a BMI of 27. Yes, that is overfat, but it's not obese (I'm also still working on getting to a lower BMI).
I admit that I take personal exception to general statements that X size is too big to be healthy, because I am a bigger woman. I'm taller, and broader in the shoulders and hips, and even at the mid to low range of a normal BMI, it's unlikely that I'll ever be smaller than a size 8-ish. I know that it will be a healthy size for me, just like a 10 or 12 will be when I'm at the top end of normal. It irks me when people use such a nonsensical measure to call someone too fat.
I don't remember anyone saying size 12 was obese...
I agree'd with the poster who said it wasn't healthy and it's scary that the average woman is now a size 12 (acutally 14-16) and people are okay with it...as an unpopular opinion. It's true that our society is getting okay with people being overweight to fat to obese...where is that line drawn?
But as a taller broader woman who thought I would always be in a size 8-12 but isn't I speak from experience.
I wasn't as healthy in my size 12 as I am now...my numbers were still high...they are not now.
I was still sore...I am not now
I was not dying...but I wasn't healthy.
But I agree as long as you are health size doesn't matter...
5 -
Again, it's ludicrous to say that ANY particular size is "healthy" or "unhealthy", especially if you're comparing size shifts over time. People in the Western World (by and large) have gotten bigger over the past 60 years, and that includes getting taller on average.
So far in this discussion, we've established:
1) Sizing for women's clothing in reality is all over the place and has shifted over time into vanity sizing.
2) Sizing standards are much smaller than what is actually in the stores/ on the labels.
3) People (women in this discussion) are bigger on average than they were 60 years ago.
4) The 'average' woman is probably still overfat.
BF% (on average) is a much better discussion point that X size or X weight to answer the question 'is this too big to be healthy?'
Can we stop telling size 12 women that they're obese? While that may be true for some, it is most definitely not true for large sections of the population.
I don't know that I completely buy that this is the case. By your own admission you state that the average woman is overfat, so if the average woman is a size 12, and the average woman is overfat then wouldn't you expect most women who are a size 12 to be overfat? I think maybe there is an issue with women themselves placing way too much importance on dress size when in reality what matters is being at a healthy weight.
The average woman is 5'4. On average (most likely) a 5'4 woman who is a size 12 is overweight. However, that does not mean that being a size 12 means you are overweight. A 5'10 woman, for example.
So plenty of people who are 12 are not overweight.
(This is like the silliest conversation ever. I don't get why people are invested in saying a particular dress size is inherently a sign of overweight or obesity when there are much more direct measures like height and weight.)10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions