What nobody tells you about losing weight
Replies
-
littlegreenparrot1 wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »That your clothes will get longer when you lose weight. I tried on a dress this morning that was a little loose, but wearable, but the length had changed and I just hated how it fell on me.
I find jeans shopping hard, I've shrunk out of 4s and a lot stores only go to 4. I found some 2s at Goodwill that I like. I have actually found dresses in the Junior's section that fit me fairly well, as I'm also petite. I bought an XS dress at Target I have been so unhappy with because it's just big everywhere. Not like I can buy any smaller in women's clothes.
It is a bit of a pain, but do you have a friendly local seamstress or tailor?
There is only so much they can do, but it's always worth asking if it's a favourite that would otherwise have to go.
It's not that nice of a dress, it's too big in the body of the dress too but I could make that work. Just a casual knit dress.
I'm my own local seamstress, I have two pair of jeans I'm working on the hem of today. Actually it's the same jeans I already referenced, I haven't got around to hemming them. The 2's. I also bought a pair of size 25 jeans on consignment this week and they need to be hemmed.
I tried on 3 dresses that were all too big above the waist. I think I need petite clothes or juniors clothes. My waist-to-neck measure is short.2 -
dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...2 -
@HDBKLM, re sizing.
I moved from the UK to Canada in 1974 and the sizing was different.
In the UK I was a 10, in Canada I was a size 7 (same sizing as USA).
My stats at the time were 5’ and somewhere between 7-7.5 st/98-105lbs. 32-26-34.
I am the same stats now, but oddly enough an inch taller, and take a 6/8 in the UK, and anything between a 00/6 in Canada/USA.
I frequently shop in all 3 countries.
Cheers, h.9 -
I can hem things and do buttons, but knowing how to really tailor clothes is a skill I wish I had. Like, knowing how and where to alter things to make them hang correctly or more attractively. I read once about some actress who said she has all of her clothes altered, including t-shirts. If you knew the right ways to alter clothes, you could generally get whatever you liked and just make them look good on you!kenyonhaff wrote: »Congrats on learning to sew on a button! A few key sewing skills can save a lot of money!
But...if you can find a seamstress/tailor it can be a big timesaver too. I'm good around a sewing machine but even I send items to a professional on occasion.
Since I'll probably never have that skill, though, I really should find a professional.
1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »@HDBKLM, re sizing.
I moved from the UK to Canada in 1974 and the sizing was different.
In the UK I was a 10, in Canada I was a size 7 (same sizing as USA).
My stats at the time were 5’ and somewhere between 7-7.5 st/98-105lbs. 32-26-34.
I am the same stats now, but oddly enough an inch taller, and take a 6/8 in the UK, and anything between a 00/6 in Canada/USA.
I frequently shop in all 3 countries.
Cheers, h.
@middlehaitch Good info, thanks.1 -
That you will also have a wee bit of lose skin on your cheeks if you previously had a fluffy face😩😆6
-
-
That my shoelaces would be too long. I don't know the correct name of the two sides of the shoe where the laces go, but they are almost touching each other -- side to side -- now. The net result is that when the laces are tied, I have much more excess length, so the bow has to be larger to prevent my stepping on the laces.7
-
dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.4 -
dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.
From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing, here's the standard sizing for American Misses (adult women's straight sizes).
Going based on bust, a 1960's size 12 would indeed be about a size 4 today (34 inch bust).10 -
RelCanonical wrote: »dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.
From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing, here's the standard sizing for American Misses (adult women's straight sizes).
Going based on bust, a 1960's size 12 would indeed be about a size 4 today (34 inch bust).
This agrees with my experiences with vintage clothing. I have a lovely chiffon Miss Elliette of California dress, circa 1970, which is a marked size 16. I wear a modern US size dress between 6 and 12 depending on manufacturer - most frequently an 8. I can just barely zip the vintage 16 at the waist (slightly above natural waist) but can’t zip it to the neck because my back muscles are too broad. My measurements are pretty much the same as the “straight” chart given here for a size 8 in 2011.
Modern sizing is all over the map. I was shocked to fit into Lululemon leggings at size 6, the 8 was too loose. I also own a dress which is XL and too tight. A shirt from Kohl’s which is a small and too large. Another dress is a 10. In most athletic clothes I’m a medium but my Saucony running shirt which is a L is very tight. A similar shirt I got from Kohl’s is a small and fits fine. My running jacket is a snug XL.
In addition to the vanity sizing, vintage clothes are shaped differently. 1960s and earlier women wore girdles, corsets, and bustiers (my mom used to call this garment a “merry widow”) enough that they had a different shape, like someone today who uses waist trainers. Also, very few women lifted weights, and arms and upper torsos were expected to be slim. I have a naturally straight waist and have been surprised several times to buy vintage outfits that fit my waist but were nowhere near going over my shoulder muscles.5 -
In addition to the vanity sizing, vintage clothes are shaped differently. 1960s and earlier women wore girdles, corsets, and bustiers (my mom used to call this garment a “merry widow”) enough that they had a different shape, like someone today who uses waist trainers. Also, very few women lifted weights, and arms and upper torsos were expected to be slim. I have a naturally straight waist and have been surprised several times to buy vintage outfits that fit my waist but were nowhere near going over my shoulder muscles.
They also didn't lift. They used girdles cause they were mushy and skinnyfat.
And god, whoever thought up "vanity" sizing ought to be shot in the face.
Maybe one day we'll get clothes measured by inches too like men's clothes are.
15 -
dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.
Actually I did know that about sizes once being smaller. What was in the back of my mind while I was writing the two sidebars is how sometimes I see on the boards people who seem to be denying vanity sizing (and other shifts or de-standardisations in sizing) over the decades. The extreme example of such denial would be Roseanne Barr's assertion that she was sexy because she wore a similar dress size to Marilyn Monroe—not that Roseanne Barr cannot be described as sexy, but the numerical evidence alone was not a sufficient basis for such a comparison. Poor science on her part, let's say.
Things like the Sweet Valley High and Mary Tyler Moore examples felt like 'archaeological' evidence of these shifts that I guess I felt like collecting.
ETA: Clarification that I obviously did not see the Roseanne example on the MFP boards, but what I do see is comparable-if-less-extreme denial of the existence of vanity sizing or its distorting effect on the way we view shifts in body shapes and sizes as well.5 -
dhiammarath wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »A few stores I went to lately don’t even carry my size in pants. The smallest they sell is size 4, which are more like an 8 with vanity sizing. 😩 I got a few gift cards for my birthday to Christopher and banks but their clothes are too big. It’s kind of sad that stores don’t even carry below size 4 anymore because of how overweight the population is.
I'm starting to run into that, which is ridiculous because I'm not even that small. I like Worthington pants from JCPenney for work, but the smallest size they carry (in my local store at least) is 4 and those are getting baggy on me. Plus I need petite, which are even more limited. I can order them, but I hate not being able to try on pants first because 9 times out of 10 they don't fit right in one way or another.
(I know, what a problem to have. But it really is annoying :grumble: )
Count me among those who are flummoxed by this as well. At 5'3" and 135 pounds I'm wearing a size 4–6 or a small, and actually in yoga pants an XS (I'm an apple so my legs are on the smaller side, proportionately). For one thing, I happen to recall that in the 90s, when I was in college I was wearing a medium at Urban Outfitters (just for reference) at 125 pounds. And on top of that, what are the ACTUAL extra small people wearing? One of my best friends is 5'1" and 95 pounds (yet still with curves because life is not fair). If I'm 40 pounds heavier than her and in some of the smallest available sizes, it must be incredibly frustrating for her!
I am starting to run into this in some stores. I’m long legged, narrow hipped, and short-waisted. I discovered that petite tops work for me but I need longer pants. My legs are holding onto the last of my weight but already I’m starting to find issues finding my size in some stores. Especially my favorite one!
I used to have trouble finding things my size when I was 100lbs heavier. Now I’m still having this problem, and it’s not something I thought would happen. I’m not sure what I will do when I hit my final goal (which is smack in the middle of my BMI range).
It’s a weird problem to have and I sometimes feel awkward when it happens because of the nature of the problem. c.c
Sidebar: Did anybody else here read the Sweet Valley High novels in the 80s and remember that the Wakefield twins were described as being a perfect size 6? Hello vanity sizing: if their size 6 were my current size 6—wherein I can still pinch not just an inch but full handfuls from my torso—I'm not sure they'd have been considered quite the specimens of physical perfection they were being represented as being.
Sidebar 2: I was just (re)watching a Season 1 episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (so circa 1970) on YouTube. In the ep Mary was supposed to be the maid of honour at a friend's wedding and at the last minute was replaced by another woman, who also co-opted her bridesmaid dress. Rhoda quipped that it must be a prerequisite that all this woman's friends had to be a size 8. So in 1970-71 Mary Tyler Moore, famous for spunk and for being a stick figure, was a size 8.
Out of curiosity, does anybody here know for sure if there was a time when US and UK sizes were not 2 sizes off from each other? I wonder if at one point they were the same and the UK just started vanity sizing later in the game ...
Sizes were smaller then though. I wore one of my mom's dresses from the mid 60's and it was labeled size 12. I was a modern size 5 and I got it zipped but couldn't breathe. lol. So a 1970 size 8 might might have been a modern size 4.
Edited cuz I can't spell.
Actually I did know that about sizes once being smaller. What was in the back of my mind while I was writing the two sidebars is how sometimes I see on the boards people who seem to be denying vanity sizing (and other shifts or de-standardisations in sizing) over the decades. The extreme example of such denial would be Roseanne Barr's assertion that she was sexy because she wore a similar dress size to Marilyn Monroe—not that Roseanne Barr cannot be described as sexy, but the numerical evidence alone was not a sufficient basis for such a comparison. Poor science on her part, let's say.
Things like the Sweet Valley High and Mary Tyler Moore examples felt like 'archaeological' evidence of these shifts that I guess I felt like collecting.
ETA: Clarification that I obviously did not see the Roseanne example on the MFP boards, but what I do see is comparable-if-less-extreme denial of the existence of vanity sizing or its distorting effect on the way we view shifts in body shapes and sizes as well.
And even those of us who know about vanity sizing can still be caught off guard a bit. I mean, I know vintage clothing is sized (and shaped) very differently (I wore my grandma’s wedding dress for her 50th anniversary party, when I was in 8th grade. Man that was TINY !).
But I guess I didn’t think there was as big a shift from when I was in HS (late 90s) to now. Even though I was just commenting on how annoyed I was that LOFT seemed to have resized everything from last fall to this summer (my size 2 jeans are now a 0). So if that happened in a year, I should not be surprised that my HS 4s are likely the same size as my 2s or 0s now. Yet I still am. Maybe that has more to do with my mental compression of time 🙄2 -
My hipbones are...not where I thought they'd be. They start much higher on my torso. I just never really realized because there was always a decent amount of fat in the way. I always thought they started where my "love handles" are, but that's where the GAP between my pelvis and thigh bone is.9
-
When you don't have fat covering things you get prodded and poked by things like belts8
-
You know... I live in Montana and most people here dress similarly to how you say folks dress there--jeans rule the day for most people.
But you don't have to be most people! I haven't worn pants (outside of yoga pants for working out or sweatpants for lounging in the house) for years. All dresses, all the time. Occasionally people do comment, "Wow, you're so dressed up!" And I just laugh at the very idea. It sincerely takes less effort to "dress up" in a dress than it does to coordinate matching separates.
THIS to the high heavens. I wear dresses every day of the year (aside from yoga pants for working out) and people always question me on it. The number of times I've told people I find it's easier to put on a dress than to coordinate separates.. it's crazy. It goes in one ear and out the other though.15 -
You know... I live in Montana and most people here dress similarly to how you say folks dress there--jeans rule the day for most people.
But you don't have to be most people! I haven't worn pants (outside of yoga pants for working out or sweatpants for lounging in the house) for years. All dresses, all the time. Occasionally people do comment, "Wow, you're so dressed up!" And I just laugh at the very idea. It sincerely takes less effort to "dress up" in a dress than it does to coordinate matching separates.
THIS to the high heavens. I wear dresses every day of the year (aside from yoga pants for working out) and people always question me on it. The number of times I've told people I find it's easier to put on a dress than to coordinate separates.. it's crazy. It goes in one ear and out the other though.
I am also a daily dress wearer. I have a daily "uniform" of dress (in any color or pattern), black tights, black waist belt, black heels or black boots. All other clothing or shoes is for a specific function (e.g. for working out, swimming, etc.). It greatly reduces decision fatigue for me while still allowing choice in my dress.
It is also cheaper. Tights are cheap, I get dresses at Goodwill or other thrift shops which are cheaper than buying two separates.10 -
I wear a lot of dresses when I travel for work because they take up less suitcase space and they always look nice. Now that you don't have to wear pantyhose, it's a much better solution. Back in the day, when you had to wear hose all the time - NO WAY.10
-
How good it feels to cut my toenails & breathe at the same time..
45 -
This content has been removed.
-
I wear a lot of dresses when I travel for work because they take up less suitcase space and they always look nice. Now that you don't have to wear pantyhose, it's a much better solution. Back in the day, when you had to wear hose all the time - NO WAY.
I think the devil invented hose.7 -
I wear a lot of dresses when I travel for work because they take up less suitcase space and they always look nice. Now that you don't have to wear pantyhose, it's a much better solution. Back in the day, when you had to wear hose all the time - NO WAY.
I think the devil invented hose.
No, just a man 15 -
Madwife2009 wrote: »I wear a lot of dresses when I travel for work because they take up less suitcase space and they always look nice. Now that you don't have to wear pantyhose, it's a much better solution. Back in the day, when you had to wear hose all the time - NO WAY.
I think the devil invented hose.
No, just a man
Nope - the men always preferred stockings
I joke of course - given the date of their development it was almost certainly a man - but 'in my day' the men always bemoaned their introduction 7 -
RelCanonical wrote: »You know... I live in Montana and most people here dress similarly to how you say folks dress there--jeans rule the day for most people.
But you don't have to be most people! I haven't worn pants (outside of yoga pants for working out or sweatpants for lounging in the house) for years. All dresses, all the time. Occasionally people do comment, "Wow, you're so dressed up!" And I just laugh at the very idea. It sincerely takes less effort to "dress up" in a dress than it does to coordinate matching separates.
THIS to the high heavens. I wear dresses every day of the year (aside from yoga pants for working out) and people always question me on it. The number of times I've told people I find it's easier to put on a dress than to coordinate separates.. it's crazy. It goes in one ear and out the other though.
I am also a daily dress wearer. I have a daily "uniform" of dress (in any color or pattern), black tights, black waist belt, black heels or black boots. All other clothing or shoes is for a specific function (e.g. for working out, swimming, etc.). It greatly reduces decision fatigue for me while still allowing choice in my dress.
It is also cheaper. Tights are cheap, I get dresses at Goodwill or other thrift shops which are cheaper than buying two separates.
Exactly! I also have a "uniform": whichever dress seems appropriate for the day, a sweater (typically a cardigan), and either flats (for work) or boots (for play). My sweaters and shoes are all pretty neutral colors, so it's way easy to mix and match depending on the dress.
So easy! "Wow, you're so dressed up!" Oh, honey... No, I'm really not--I hate the cliche sound of it, but I literally just threw this all on xD
I do wish I liked tights and/or belts, though. I can't stand anything that fits too snugly like that
3 -
At my highest weight, I was always bumping my arms/shoulders into things because I underestimated how much 'space' I needed to get around things.
Losing weight made me realize I wasn't that clumsy, just had poor depth perception of my own measurements.14 -
RelCanonical wrote: »You know... I live in Montana and most people here dress similarly to how you say folks dress there--jeans rule the day for most people.
But you don't have to be most people! I haven't worn pants (outside of yoga pants for working out or sweatpants for lounging in the house) for years. All dresses, all the time. Occasionally people do comment, "Wow, you're so dressed up!" And I just laugh at the very idea. It sincerely takes less effort to "dress up" in a dress than it does to coordinate matching separates.
THIS to the high heavens. I wear dresses every day of the year (aside from yoga pants for working out) and people always question me on it. The number of times I've told people I find it's easier to put on a dress than to coordinate separates.. it's crazy. It goes in one ear and out the other though.
I am also a daily dress wearer. I have a daily "uniform" of dress (in any color or pattern), black tights, black waist belt, black heels or black boots. All other clothing or shoes is for a specific function (e.g. for working out, swimming, etc.). It greatly reduces decision fatigue for me while still allowing choice in my dress.
It is also cheaper. Tights are cheap, I get dresses at Goodwill or other thrift shops which are cheaper than buying two separates.
Exactly! I also have a "uniform": whichever dress seems appropriate for the day, a sweater (typically a cardigan), and either flats (for work) or boots (for play). My sweaters and shoes are all pretty neutral colors, so it's way easy to mix and match depending on the dress.
So easy! "Wow, you're so dressed up!" Oh, honey... No, I'm really not--I hate the cliche sound of it, but I literally just threw this all on xD
I do wish I liked tights and/or belts, though. I can't stand anything that fits too snugly like that
I like to feel "cinched in" so I think it's all personal preference!
I like the idea of a capsule wardrobe, although honestly, all the videos online talking about capsule wardrobes seem to already have way more clothes than I do already, so I suppose I might already have one. I barely fill my closet and there are clothes in there I want to get rid of because they're too big.5 -
I'm finally getting to the point where I feel like I'm looking thin when I look in the mirror. People have been telling me but I've just been kind of brushing it off. Now I'm kind of feeling like I'm getting there, even at the "bad" angles.25
-
How good it feels to just walk places. I used to get so out of breath I'd avoid even getting to the end of the road. My world is so much bigger now and today I walked a couple miles home in blazing sun up many hills and enjoyed it!22
-
lozenger1984 wrote: »How good it feels to just walk places. I used to get so out of breath I'd avoid even getting to the end of the road. My world is so much bigger now and today I walked a couple miles home in blazing sun up many hills and enjoyed it!
I still hate the blazing sun but now that it's fall I love just walking out my door. I feel privileged to be able to just walk for miles on safe sidewalks, but I wasn't able to appreciate this as much when I would get tired after only 30 minutes. I have a wonky hip and it would just ache after a brisk 30 minute walk. Now I can walk to town without even thinking about it, which is about 40 minutes one way.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!