How much to lose to fit in one pant size down?

My weight vs pants size has been all over the place. When I was heavier it seemed to be 20 pounds or so between sizes. Most recently I went from a size 4 to a size 2 and had only lost about 7 pounds. Been bloated this week with TOM and up 3 pounds and now those seem tight.

I'm 5'6" and I got into a so 12 at around 165. I'm in the 150s now and a size 10.

I'm 5'6" and the last time I wore a 12 I weighed 180.

Urbancowbarn wrote: »

Congratulations on your weightloss! WTG!

Here are my stats- also same brand jeans/pants
5’ 6’
168 size 6
155 size 4
144 size 2

So it looks like every 10lbs I go down a size. I have a banana shape A lot depends on where you hold your weight. I would love a tiny waist, but it’s never gonna happen because of my body shape/proportions. I mean my waist could be tiny, but won’t look tiny in comparison to the rest of me if that makes sense.

If you don't have a tiny waist, or a tiny something, how the heck do you squeeze into those tiny sizes!? I guess no hips maybe? Or is it vanity sizing, cuz I've never been able to go lower than size 4, and that's when I'm 130 or less...At 155 I'm squeezing into a 10 and pushing a size 12!!! I'm just trying to visualize it...(I've also been called a banana.)

Urbancowbarn wrote: »

Congratulations on your weightloss! WTG!

Here are my stats- also same brand jeans/pants
5’ 6’
168 size 6
155 size 4
144 size 2

So it looks like every 10lbs I go down a size. I have a banana shape A lot depends on where you hold your weight. I would love a tiny waist, but it’s never gonna happen because of my body shape/proportions. I mean my waist could be tiny, but won’t look tiny in comparison to the rest of me if that makes sense.

I am 5'7", 144 and go between a 2 and a 4. Everyone always thinks it's a "heavy" weight for that pants size, and people are shocked to find out my weight. Maybe I am a banana shape also?! I've never heard of that!
Must just be how we carry our weight. Even at my very heaviest (214) I could wear a 10/12.

It varies with my size. The smaller I am, the fewer the pounds. On the high end, I've had to wait 10-15 pounds. On the low end, 5 pounds.

I agree it's how/where we carry weight.

I'm 5'6" 194. I am currently wearing a size 12 and they don't get baggy on me after wearing them for a bit. I am still able to wear my size 14 but, they eventually get baggy and I'm constantly pulling them up.

I think it also depends on the brand you are wearing - I can not get into all size 12.

adrnelane wrote: »

I'm 5'5" and now weigh 155 down from 173...I was wearing a 12 now I wear an 8 that are getting loose... Im also 54 years old. I can't imagine someone being 144 and wearing a 2, my daughters weigh 102 each and wear a 0-2 depending on the make of the clothing...they are both shorter than me 5' and 5'2" when I was 40 I weighed 116 and wore a size 4... do clothing manufacturers even put accurate sizing anymore?

Although I do believe that size 2 is the new size 4 and that sizes have changed/inflated over the years I don’t think the size you currently wear is vanity sizing since the sizing has inflated across the board for at least two decades now. In fact I think it’s a better indicator that a number on the scale is just that —a number — and doesn’t indicate how much lean mass someone has, or even someone’s frame size. My profile photo is me at 143 and a size 2 pant. I would love nothing more than to have my midsection as lean as the rest of me. I’m surprised that my stats are so surprising. I wear a size 2 pant at any store I buy clothes from - JCrew, Ann Taylor, Bananna Republic, A&F, Etc. OP I’m sorry that my stats are such a problem (or so unbelievable) on this thread.

Urbancowbarn wrote: »

adrnelane wrote: »

I'm 5'5" and now weigh 155 down from 173...I was wearing a 12 now I wear an 8 that are getting loose... Im also 54 years old. I can't imagine someone being 144 and wearing a 2, my daughters weigh 102 each and wear a 0-2 depending on the make of the clothing...they are both shorter than me 5' and 5'2" when I was 40 I weighed 116 and wore a size 4... do clothing manufacturers even put accurate sizing anymore?

Although I do believe that size 2 is the new size 4 and that sizes have changed/inflated over the years I don’t think the size you currently wear is vanity sizing since the sizing has inflated across the board for at least two decades now. In fact I think it’s a better indicator that a number on the scale is just that —a number — and doesn’t indicate how much lean mass someone has, or even someone’s frame size. My profile photo is me at 143 and a size 2 pant. I would love nothing more than to have my midsection as lean as the rest of me. I’m surprised that my stats are so surprising. I wear a size 2 pant at any store I buy clothes from - JCrew, Ann Taylor, Bananna Republic, A&F, Etc. OP I’m sorry that my stats are such a problem (or so unbelievable) on this thread.

Your stats aren't a problem. LOL. Everybody carries their weight differently. It's just really hard to visualize in the mind how various bodies are fitting into clothes when everyone's stats are so widely varied. Like if you are wearing size 2 at 143, and I wear size 8 at 138 and have never even contemplated squeezing into a 2 at even my lowest weight, you could see how amazed I might be. Not mad, not unbelieving, just amazed and surprised at
how different everyone is.

Here's a pic of me at 140 in a solid size 8 to get an idea of how the two of us at the same weight have such a difference in sizes. I'd have to be skin and bones to fit into a 2. I'm not "big-boned" or "curvy" or anything like that. Most people think I'm scrawny and weigh a lot less than I really do.

fitoverfortymom wrote: »

You want to weigh 125?!! She's 5'5" and probably in her early 70s.

I often come across older people who believe the ideal weight formula (for women) is 100 pounds for the first 5 feet and then an additional 5 pounds for each inch. I wonder if this was passed on as conventional wisdom for certain generations?

I also see some people who've been overweight for most of their lives use that formula to pick their ideal weight when they're not yet sure how they'll look/feel at lower weights.

Personally, that formula doesn't work for me. I get too scrawny at about 10 pounds above it. 15-20 pounds above it is what works best on my frame and has me in a size 4 (5 in juniors - I'm short ).

I would think that's impossible to say - everyone carries their weight differently and every brand of clothing sizes differently in my experience.

Everyone is different! I have found it a mixed blessing how much weight I can lose without changing clothing sizes (I guess I'm saving money?). To be fair, I wear a lot of knits and skirts with elastic, and was very close to sizing out of a 16 when I hit my top weight, but still! For jeans, I was wearing size 16-18 from 208 to 180, and am still comfortably wearing the same size 14s after losing another 20-25 lbs.

Chunkahlunkah wrote: »

fitoverfortymom wrote: »

You want to weigh 125?!! She's 5'5" and probably in her early 70s.

I often come across older people who believe the ideal weight formula (for women) is 100 pounds for the first 5 feet and then an additional 5 pounds for each inch. I wonder if this was passed on as conventional wisdom for certain generations?

It was, in fact! The old insurance company height-weight charts were based on that as a given. And I'm 5'5" (well. . .5' 4.5") and I look best at 125. I'm now pushing 57 and my body has pretty much decided that it wants to be 200 pounds, but that's only been the case for the last decade: I wandered back and forth between 120 and 150 for most of my adult life.