Is it possible to be a size 2 at 5"8

Why that specific size? (I assume we're talking US sizes.)

I don't see how we can say whether it's possible for you or not. (It might be possible for some women at 5'8". Whether it would be a good thing health or appearance-wise might vary, even then.)

Details of your individual body architecture matter: For example, do you have narrowly-spaced pelvic bones, or or more widely-spaced? If the latter, it's possible that a size 2 couldn't possibly fit, no matter how thin you get.

How did you feel, how did you look, at 151? That's within the normal BMI range for your height, not technically overweight. (I know it could possibly be carrying more weight that you prefer, especially if you have a narrow build.)

Certainly some women can be a size 2 at your height, and taller: Elite fashion models can be that slim. It isn't always a good look in real life (vs. photos), and not always a healthy thing, either. And of course they have unusual genetics.

As a personal example of body architecture, my upper body torso got small enough that I can fit small or sometimes extra-small women's tops . . . as long as they don't have sleeves. Because I have broad shoulders (skeletally) and a little more shoulder muscle than average for my size, when there are sleeves I need at least a medium, sometimes even a large. Otherwise, it will pull badly through the shoulders. No amount of weight loss is going to change that. (For context, I'm 5'5", right now about 131 pounds. I've been as low as 116 in recent years - overshot goal weight when losing. Even then, I needed the M/L tops . . . at just above underweight BMI, and too thin for my best health/appearance.)

I have fairly narrow hips, but kind of a rectangular sturdy peasant-ish build. I have a female friend who's over 6 feet tall, who wears about the same pants size I do. It's not that she's scary-skinny in body composition terms, it's that she's one of those people who is tall, narrow, lightly built in terms of skeletal size - very narrow pelvic width.

If PP is correct, and you meant 12, then generally I'd think someone who'd been a size 10 could be a size 12, but even that would vary. For example, I've seen some women say that their actual pelvic width changed with childbirth. I've also known women IRL who got ultra-serious about strength training, and had difficulty finding pants that fit their quads.

When I was in my late teens/early 20s, I got down to a similar weight to where I am now. Clothes that I wore then - I still have a couple of things from then around - fit somewhat similarly (not exactly) to how they did then. The actual size numbers of my new clothes now, though, are smaller numbers. In my teens, I got down to a size 8 at smallest, maybe more often 10. Now, the same size (measurement wise) seems to be 4, more likely 6. That's the "vanity sizing" thing.

I don't see myself ever getting into a US size 2, at a healthy weight . . . but that's with my body configuration, including the wide shoulders. You? I don't see how I could know, based only on what you've said here.

Also wondering if you meant size 2 or 12. What's your frame size? This is not exact for everyone, but it's a start. https://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp

I'm 5'6", have a large frame, and would be hospitalized at size 2. 12 is a good size for me.

meggers123xo wrote: »

I used to be 5"8 and 151 pounds and I wore a size 10 in jeans. Due to medication related weight gain, I'm now 5"8 and about 220 pounds wearing a size 14-16 in jeans
Once and for all, I really want to get down to a smaller size. How would I become a size 2 at 5"8?

Depending on your frame, it may be possible, but it would be really hard to maintain. For U.S. sizing, you could shoot for a size 4 or 6 and with your height, you will appear even slimmer. If you have a narrow frame or a large frame, it can change things wildly even though your height stays the same. A size 4 to 6 would still keep you on the low end of a healthy range for your height.

If your height was accurate, then at 151 pounds, you were a size 10. To get to a size 2, you'd have to be around 100 to 110 pounds--and that is only if your weight continues to fall off evenly. Basically, 8 to 10 pounds per clothing size (this is an estimation). It would be difficult to maintain and I'm not all sure that it be healthy for you to be under 110. Below a 123 pounds is considered underweight at your height.

But to be honest, U.S. sizing is all over the place. Six different brands will all have a different size 6.

But my math is a guestimation. All people are different.

Clothing size varies so much for women, especially in the US. Different companies can have vastly different "size 2's"

meggers123xo wrote: »

I used to be 5"8 and 151 pounds and I wore a size 10 in jeans. Due to medication related weight gain, I'm now 5"8 and about 220 pounds wearing a size 14-16 in jeans.

Once and for all, I really want to get down to a smaller size. How would I become a size 2 at 5"8?

No offense, but to level set is the weight gain purely from medication? Need to be honest to address the situation. If it really is, could you discuss alternative treatment with your medical provider?

ejemail4me2 wrote: »

I can't imagine being that small. I'm 5'8 and a few years back got down to about 135 ,140ish and that put me at a size small and a size 6 almost 4 and it did not look too good on my frame in my opinion.

What got me that small and not on purpose was doing a fast and then very low carbs. Huge salads. Also some exercise.

Good to know eje, I'm 5'8". Many sites list my ideal weight around 140. Based on my past, I just can't imagine ever wanting to weigh less than 150. Right now I'm thinking 160 is a good start, maybe take 6 months to a year to decide whether to go lower.

I was watching that Bonnie & Clyde episode on Expedition Unknown and I started researching them as I watched. What caught my eye was the physical stats. Clyde was 5’6-5’7 (depending on source) and 125 lbs, Melvin Barrow 5’5” 110 lbs, Frank Clause 5’ 9.5” and 125 lbs, and Henry Methvin 5’ 9.5” 170 lbs. Blanch Barrow’s height and weight is unknown but she looked very healthy until she was caught. I apologize if this is totally off topic, but I couldn’t help but wonder if anyone sees them as thin but fine. Not dangerously emaciated, but a few more lbs certainly wouldn’t hurt.

I guess how this relates is, what people think looks good, bad, or other, is so completely subjective. I’m not sure we know what normal really is because your environment will dictate what you think is normal. I heard a guy say, “I'm a California 6 but a Mississippi 10” and I feel like weight works like that in a lot of ways. It depends, where and when you are.

That being said OP, you should be the size that makes you feel your absolute best. You’ll know when you get there.

Also unsure if you meant size 12-/ but if you meant size 2- body frame plays an important part.. I know some women who are very fit and no extra lbs that are a size 6-8 just by body frame alone.

I’m 5’8.5 and my lowest size was size 4- and I’m slender built with smaller bones. My sister in law is about 5”7 and she is a size 2 naturally but also has very narrow hips and prob size A bra.

Currently I’m ok with being a bigger size because I have more hips these days 😉

xbowhunter wrote: »

ddsb1111 wrote: »

I was watching that Bonnie & Clyde episode on Expedition Unknown and I started researching them as I watched. What caught my eye was the physical stats. Clyde was 5’6-5’7 (depending on source) and 125 lbs, Melvin Barrow 5’5” 110 lbs, Frank Clause 5’ 9.5” and 125 lbs, and Henry Methvin 5’ 9.5” 170 lbs. Blanch Barrow’s height and weight is unknown but she looked very healthy until she was caught. I apologize if this is totally off topic, but I couldn’t help but wonder if anyone else looks at them like they look thin but fine. Not dangerously emaciated, but a few more lbs certainly wouldn’t hurt.

I guess how this relates is, what people think looks good, bad, or other, is so completely subjective. I’m not sure we know what normal really is because your environment will dictate what you think is normal. I heard a guy say, “I'm a California 6 but a Mississippi 10” and I feel like weight works like that in a lot of ways. It depends, where and when you are.

That being said OP, you should be the size that makes you feel your absolute best. You’ll know when you get there.

Totally relevant!

I bet back then they didn't eat or even know what processed foods are. They ate real food and probably walked every-where. We would be much better off if we lived that lifestyle today.

😅. Don’t get me wrong, I thank my lucky stars everyday for the luxuries I have. But it can certainly be a blessing and a curse.