Is it possible to be a size 2 at 5"8
meggers123xo
Posts: 1 Member
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?
Once and for all, I really want to get down to a smaller size. How would I become a size 2 at 5"8?
Tagged:
0
Replies
-
Was that a typo - do you mean 12 (not 2), or is that US sizing (if so, please forgive my ignorant UK-centric question)?
I don’t think the size labels in clothes really mean anything… It depends on the material, and the make - and apparently they’ve changed over the years, too. I got into a size 10 briefly, but I probably looked terrible in them (everyone was probably too polite to tell me!).
I’ve always found this a useful resource:
https://sizes.darkgreener.com/0 -
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.
3 -
From size 14 to size 2 is about 7" waist, 7" hips.
Livestrong says you have to lose about 8 pounds to lose an inch.
Does that mean an average person could lose 56 pounds and make it?
I'm 5'8". At 220, I was bottom heavy, wore 20 pants. I now weigh 175, biggest size 10 in the store.1 -
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.2 -
Ps my daughter is about 5'7", wears a 2-4. Has health problems and is always fighting to keep her weight above 18.5 bmi.1
-
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.2 -
I really wouldn't use a clothing size as your goal, especially in the US. Women's sizing varies wildly depending on the brand. I'm really jealous of men's sizing, which uses numbers that actually mean something.
Set a goal based on weight or measurements, or how you look and feel, not what arbitrary number is printed in your clothes.
Also, how long ago was it that you wore a size 10 at 155 pounds? If it was a while ago, you'd probably end up in a lower size now at that same weight. I'd say in the last 15 or so years, most clothing manufacturers have adopted "vanity sizing".
For example, when I was in college 25 years ago, I was 115 pounds (I'm 5'4") and consistently wore a size 6.
Now, I'm 127 pounds and in some brands I wear a size 2, despite weighing more than when I wore a 6.
In other brands now, I'm a 4, in some I'm a 6, but 25 years ago, at this weight, I'd probably wear an 8.
In short, these numbers mean nothing.5 -
Clothing size varies so much for women, especially in the US. Different companies can have vastly different "size 2's"1
-
What if your first goal is simply to get back into the 10s? Then you can take it from there.2
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.1 -
i'm 5'4". i used to be a size 0 to a 2, but i was anorexic and quite underweight - my waist was 19 inches. based on that, i'd say that someone 5'8" would have to be severely underweight - dangerously so - to fit a size 2. also pants and skirts would be too short.1
-
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.
2 -
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.2 -
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 😉
2 -
xbowhunter 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.
Overweight and obesity has increased since the Bonnie and Clyde days so we have created a new normal.
2 -
xbowhunter 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.0 -
I'm 5'8" and at my lowest weight in eons, thanks to an extremely active Siberian Husky puppy. I am in a size 6 - HOWEVER. I wanted to eat more once the initial early days of insane exercise (for the humans) started to ease a bit, and I have. I am still in a size 6 but it's not so loose anymore.
A size 2 at my height would get into scary/intervention territory...I don't plan to find out.4 -
I'm confused as to why people are bringing height into it as a factor?
A 5'0" person who wears a size 2 and a 5"10" person who wears a size 2 presumably just have the same measurement of waist/hips, etc. I'm not sure why that clothing size would be dangerous for one and not the other. The sizes have nothing to do with scale weight. A taller person would just need more length on pants or skirts. Most clothing brands sell Tall and Petite versions of the sizes to accommodate different heights. But, it's still a Size 2.6 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I really wouldn't use a clothing size as your goal, especially in the US. Women's sizing varies wildly depending on the brand. I'm really jealous of men's sizing, which uses numbers that actually mean something.
<snip>
In short, these numbers mean nothing.
You might be surprised that men's clothing has suffered the same issues of late. It is true that when I buy pants, the number is ~supposed~ to represent an actual measurement. One handy thing many of us do is actually take measurements. You'd think that a size 32 waist would fit someone who's waist is.... 32 inches. Well, I bought some shorts in that size that would fall off of me. It's possible they were mislabeled. I once bought a long-sleeve top for kayaking. The tag said L/S on it, but it had short sleeves. I guess that happens.
I have two pair of Carhartt pants. The one that has a smaller size is bigger than the one with a larger size number. The smaller sized ones are too big for me. The larger size actually fits.
I think that shirt measurements are probably still correct - neck circumference and sleeve length. If you know those measurements, you can even buy clothes from a thrift store without trying them on if they have that kind of measurements.
It's even worse with sizes that aren't numbers - like S, M, and L. At the thrift shop, I have to guess how old a garment is to know what those letters mean. There's no way I should wear size small pants, yet if they're modern, that's the size that usually fits. Between sizes in shirts makes nothing fit right. Oh well. I don't dress to impress - just to stay warm.
2 -
Don't think so unless you're really skinny with no muscle.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I'm 5"8", carry my weight in my midsection, and wear an 8. My stick-thin daughter is an inch or so shorter and wears a 4 and they are loose. Her BMI was below the charts low last year and her Dr. was concerned enough to suggest medication. That has since been corrected for her, but I truly cannot imagine a grown adult at my height fitting into a 2. That's eating disorder territory, IMO.2
-
So you're 5ft 8" and 220lbs today.
Not sure what the final clothing number being 11, 10, or 8, or 2 has to do with anything today.
Would being normal weight impact you negatively?
There is a good year or two between where you are today and a healthy path to getting to be in the 160s or 150s.
How about we resume the conversation then?
Please note that if you have a prior ED history you should discuss this and your plans with a medical person who deals in the field. Caloric restriction by itself can affect your brain chemistry.
5 -
I'm 5"8", carry my weight in my midsection, and wear an 8. My stick-thin daughter is an inch or so shorter and wears a 4 and they are loose. Her BMI was below the charts low last year and her Dr. was concerned enough to suggest medication. That has since been corrected for her, but I truly cannot imagine a grown adult at my height fitting into a 2. That's eating disorder territory, IMO.
You make a good point, I had never considered how where we carry our weight can impact how clothes fit too.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions