Something I've always wondered about sizes

Well, just as a data point - I'm 5'6", 137 lbs this morning, and I
wear a size 6.

In high school I was 5'7", weighed 123 lbs., and wore a size 10 to 12. So
I *know* there has been size deflation in the clothing industry!

- Anne

I think I'm finding that too!

Even at 230, I still feel like this is the thinnest I've ever been and can
fit into pants that I couldn't normally fit into before my 60 lb weight gain
last year. The thigh muscles are the biggest muscles we have, so that must
account for some of the added weight?

If I ever get down to 200, I would look like a starving bean pole! LOL

Mark

--
285/231/210 6' 1 "
Aug/03/03
Literaly Walked My Fat Ass Off! LOL

-----------------------------------------------------
"Martha Gallagher" wrote in

But, it's also not just that. People who have lost a non trivial amount of
weight do sometimes hang onto the the extra muscle etc, that they
developed to carry the weight around.

I was trying on sport jackets last week. At the more usual department store,
the 46long jackets were half an inch short at the sleeves, two inches too
short in the body, and just barely ok when buttoned. I could never wear a
vest or sweater under the Blazer.
Down the corridor at the slightly upscale store I found the sleeve length
perfect as was the body length. I could layer three vests under the jacket
with the bottoms fastened. I mentioned this to the salesman, who added
alterations for a very low price, and he advised that there are no size
standards in that industry. As an example of no standards, just look at what
is called taupe (the color).
Shoe sizes are almost standardized, but that is not chiseled in stone
either. Lower prices usually yield lower quality. Just look at Wal Mart.

"Anne" wrote in message
...

Well, just as a data point - I'm 5'6", 137 lbs this morning, and I
wear a size 6.

In high school I was 5'7", weighed 123 lbs., and wore a size 10 to 12. So
I *know* there has been size deflation in the clothing industry!

- Anne

The sewing pattern companies haven't changed their sizes at all. They
state the exact measurements for their sizes too.

Currently we're being told that the most popular women's size is 14
but that's probably size 18 in 1972 terms.

I have the same stats as Jenny, btw, and I can get into size 8 mostly
but with designer clothes (eg. Liz Claiborne), I'll wear size 6. I
think when celeBraties say they wear size 0 or 2, they mean in their
designer clothes. At Kmart or Sears, they would wear maybe a size 4 or
6.

Ronit
167/137


"Jenny" wrote in message ...
I'm at 139 this week and my size 8-10 Medium ladies pants are so big they're
falling off. So theoretically I'm a 6. If I'm a t, then the 188 pound lady
can be a 12. It's all baloney. They've inflated the sizes because otherwise
everyone would be having to buy size 24s.

Today's 6 is the old 12 from the 1970s. Back in 1978 the only time I could
get into a 6 was when I weighed 108 lbs and hadn't eaten lunch. Now I'm a
six with 30 more pounds on me.

when celeBraties say they wear size 0 or 2, they mean in their
designer clothes. At Kmart or Sears, they would wear maybe a size 4 or
6.


I dunno. Celebrities tend to be TEEEEEENY in person. It's almost like
they're a different species, especially female movie stars etc. Over the
years in my work I have met and/or seen some of these people close up, in
person (Diana Ross, Jane Fonda, George Harrison), and lord, they are
tiny-boned and skinny and just overall SMALL like you wouldn't believe. I
guess it's true that the camera adds 20 lbs. It's funny, because if you
look at some stars' photos, you start to realize many of them have heads
that are big in proportion to their little skinny bodies. :-)

- Anne

Well.. i'm pretty darn close to that Pat..
I'm a size 14.. and DAMN proud of it.. considering I was a size 20-22
in January. I'm also only 5'3".
I can remember being 155 and a size 9 jeans when I was 19.

My weight has always seemed heavy for what size I wear.
But then again.. I've had more than a few friends guess my weight (and
being honest about it) placed me 20-30lbs lighter than I am. When
they find out the true scale number.. they're almost always
disbelieving.

I think alot of it has to do with how you are built... But i'm sure
not complaining.

I know my mother who started LC in February.. went from a size 16 to a
size 8 in some clothes.. but a solid 10 in all her others.. and She
weighs 160.

Anyways...
like beauty being in the eye of the beholder..
I think sizes are in the shape of the person.
~Karen~




I just can't see a 188 pound woman wearing a *true* size 12 that someone
would buy at Dillard's or Foley's or Sears Roebuck or J.C. Penney's, etc.

~Karen~
225/188/140ish
start Jan17/03
Started at the gym September/03

Alan M wrote:

I was trying on sport jackets last week. At the more usual department store,
the 46long jackets were half an inch short at the sleeves, two inches too
short in the body, and just barely ok when buttoned. I could never wear a
vest or sweater under the Blazer.
Down the corridor at the slightly upscale store I found the sleeve length
perfect as was the body length. I could layer three vests under the jacket
with the bottoms fastened. I mentioned this to the salesman, who added
alterations for a very low price, and he advised that there are no size
standards in that industry. As an example of no standards, just look at what
is called taupe (the color).
Shoe sizes are almost standardized, but that is not chiseled in stone
either. Lower prices usually yield lower quality. Just look at Wal Mart.

Well, yes and no. Years, no decades, ago, when I started working,
I went through a phase of buying designer clothes. (I thought
that was amusing, since I basically lived (and live) in jeans.) I
also bought some cheaper clothes at the same time to bum around
in. The expensive designer clothes were EXTREMELY poorly made,
and I began to theorize that that was because no one expected them
to be worn several times, let alone for years.

--
Jean B.

"Jenny" wrote in message ...
I'm at 139 this week and my size 8-10 Medium ladies pants are so big they're
falling off. So theoretically I'm a 6. If I'm a t, then the 188 pound lady
can be a 12. It's all baloney. They've inflated the sizes because otherwise
everyone would be having to buy size 24s.

It's all random, anyway.

Oh, and I weigh about 180 and I'm 5'9" and I wear a size 12.
Sometimes a 10. Sometimes an 8 (rarely) and sometimes a 14. Everyone
carries their weight differently, and muscle is more compact than fat.


Today's 6 is the old 12 from the 1970s.

Not usually--I buy a lot of vintage clothing and used to do theater
costuming and the differential is generally 2 sizes. So a 1973 size
10 would be a 2003 size 6.

Back in 1978 the only time I could
get into a 6 was when I weighed 108 lbs and hadn't eaten lunch. Now I'm a
six with 30 more pounds on me.


I bet you have a lot more muscle than you did then!



"Pat" wrote in message
...
Today in the paper there was a story of a woman who weighed over 268
pounds
and lost 80 pounds and "now wears a size 12." That means she weighs 188
pounds and is a size 12?

Certainly possible, depending on what her height and her muscle-to-fat
ratio is.

I don't get it: when I take my mother to go
shopping for clothes, she wears a size 10 or sometimes a size 12 and she
weighs 124 pounds and is 5'6" tall.

I don't know how old your mother is, but if she is over 65, she
probably has a higher fat-to-muscle ratio than someone who recently
lost 80 pounds.

I'm surprised that your mother wears a size 12 with a BMI of 20, which
is quite low for anyone over 50. Does she like to wear her clothes
extremely loose?

I have seen this before, where women
claim to be a size 8 and actually weigh 170 pounds or so....now, I know
that
women's clothes sizes are all subjective according to the manufacturer,
but
I just can't see a 188 pound woman wearing a *true* size 12 that someone
would buy at Dillard's or Foley's or Sears Roebuck

Sears clothes are HUGE! I can fit into a Sears size 10 and I'm 180,
5'9". I've never been to the other stores you mention.

Weight and dimensions vary tremendously. It's true that clothing
sizes have changed over the past 30 years, as well.

T.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:26:53 -0600, Pat wrote:

Today in the paper there was a story of a woman who weighed over 268 pounds
and lost 80 pounds and "now wears a size 12." That means she weighs 188
pounds and is a size 12? I don't get it: when I take my mother to go
shopping for clothes, she wears a size 10 or sometimes a size 12 and she
weighs 124 pounds and is 5'6" tall. I have seen this before, where women
claim to be a size 8 and actually weigh 170 pounds or so....now, I know that
women's clothes sizes are all subjective according to the manufacturer, but
I just can't see a 188 pound woman wearing a *true* size 12 that someone
would buy at Dillard's or Foley's or Sears Roebuck or J.C. Penney's, etc.

Pat in TX

I can believe this. Last weekend at the mall I saw a lady that weighted
(guessing) 250LBs and I think she was wearing size 8 strech pants. She
looked lovely! :-}

--
Randy M
234/203/175
Atkins since 7/14/03

In article , Jean B. wrote:
also bought some cheaper clothes at the same time to bum around
in. The expensive designer clothes were EXTREMELY poorly made,
and I began to theorize that that was because no one expected them
to be worn several times, let alone for years.

My theory is that people on a "clothes budget" are looking for
not only low price but also good durability so the manufacturers
will go out of their way to ensure that they're manufactured well.
People buying designer clothes are after one thing and one thing
only: the sticker on the bum of the jeans. Why bother making
good quality clothes when what you're really selling is the
product of your marketing department, not of your manufacturing
department?

--
- Drew Toronto, ON, Canada
http://www.awh.org/
227/216/199 (interim goal)