Virtual weigh-ins

[digummm]

6' 1" 175lbs , It never changes ,eat what I want when I want- yesterday was 3 bananas with half a box of Honey Bunches of Oats to start my day. 3 double cheeseburgers
on my way to work. Stopped for a paper on the way to work a grabbed a 12 pack of tastykake donuts ate 3 before I went in to work.
At work I had a 8oz block of hot cream cheese at first break and 2 8oz steaks some corn and mashed potatoes for dinner. Got home from work at 11pm had some Spanish Rice with sausage in it and ate the rest of the box of donuts. I drank over a quart of milk 2 percent and at least 3 quarts of water thru out the day. Does not matter what I eat I can not gain a pound if my life depended on it.
If I ate like everyone eals I would disappear

[JoanieBlon]

I'm 61 and 5'2" tall. I used to be 5'4" but have managed to shink as I have aged. Fairly muscular build. Right now I'm at 133. My goal weight is 128 which is what I look the best at and feel the best at too. Less than that weight and I tend to look emaciated and bony.

Over 4 years of too much good living (cruises & vacations) and too much unnecessary calories from alcohol, I managed to balloon up to a peak weight of 154 from after we returned from the British Isles. Enough was enough. I started speed walking 2.5+ miles every day, cut out almost all bread with meals, as well as potatoes, and cut back to ONE alcoholic beverage per day (usually red wine) except while we are on vacation, or for special occasions. That did the trick. It's taken me 5 months, but I am now within 5 pounds of my goal. Took me 4 years to put on the weight, so 5 or 6 months getting rid of it isn't too bad. I'm back into size 6 or 8 jeans (down from size 14) and feel GOOD!

I find that I MUST weigh myself EACH and EVERY morning to stick to a regimine of weight control. I allow for day to day variences, but when my weight starts a steady upward climb, time to take action.

Inasmuch as I posted this today (Tuesday) my next virtual weigh in will be next Tuesday.....

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by JoanieBlon

Size 8 is the norm?? I'm amazed at that. Most of the people I see around Tampa are WAY bigger than an 8 ~ including, unfortunately ~ a very large percentage of young girls.

I thought the average US woman was a size 14? weighed like 140? Wasn't that the info from that study that came out last year?

[roni]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

I thought the average US woman was a size 14? weighed like 140? Wasn't that the info from that study that came out last year?

Most women I know who weigh 140 are not in a size 14.

Guess they are big-boned

[JoanieBlon]

Originally Posted by roni

Most women I know who weigh 140 are not in a size 14.

Guess they are big-boned

At 140 I can get into a 10 or sometimes smaller. Of course the 8 of TODAY is the 12 or perhaps 14 of say 40 years ago.

Name brand "designer" clothes seem to be VERY generous in sizing. Chicos has avoided the nasty size issue by making clothes in sizes 0, 1, 2 and 3.

[roni]

Originally Posted by JoanieBlon

At 140 I can get into a 10 or sometimes smaller. Of course the 8 of TODAY is the 12 or perhaps 14 of say 40 years ago.

Name brand "designer" clothes seem to be VERY generous in sizing. Chicos has avoided the nasty size issue by making clothes in sizes 0, 1, 2 and 3.

Same goes for non-designer clothing, I reckon. Kathy has always joked that if you wanted a smaller size you only had to spend twice or three times the money for the same quality with a different size label on it .

[SunKneeMarie]

here's one link:
Statistics

how do you "stack up" to Barbie?
Real Women vs. Barbie

this one was from 2002 and compares different countries averages (Numbers are even higher here)
Women's sizes by country; The age group with the best memory - USATODAY.com

[Rissask]

The stat I remember hearing or reading was the 'average' woman in North America is 5'4" and 144 pounds. Nothing about size though.

When I weighed 144 pounds I was nowhere near a size 14....I think I was at most, even 150 pounds, only a size ten. But that is just because of my body type, I have a small waist even when I am heavier.

JoanieBlon:

At 140 I can get into a 10 or sometimes smaller. Of course the 8 of TODAY is the 12 or perhaps 14 of say 40 years ago.

'


Yup, people always say Mariluyn Monroe was a size 12 or whatever- but that is because back then 12 was what a 6 or 8 is today.
I mean, c'mon, my last pair of jeans I bought at the Gap are a size 4....I ain't no size 4, it's ridiculous!

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by Rissask

The stat I remember hearing or reading was the 'average' woman in North America is 5'4" and 144 pounds. Nothing about size though.

When I weighed 144 pounds I was nowhere near a size 14....I think I was at most, even 150 pounds, only a size ten. But that is just because of my body type, I have a small waist even when I am heavier.

'


Yup, people always say Mariluyn Monroe was a size 12 or whatever- but that is because back then 12 was what a 6 or 8 is today.
I mean, c'mon, my last pair of jeans I bought at the Gap are a size 4....I ain't no size 4, it's ridiculous!

I think they're talking dress size 14, not pant size... not sure why dresses are sized bigger... I can wear an 8 in a dress and I guarantee I can't wear a size 8 pant... most often a 4... probably a 2 at the Gap!!

which makes me wonder if the marilyn monroe thing was talking about dresses or pants?

[JoanieBlon]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

I think they're talking dress size 14, not pant size... not sure why dresses are sized bigger... I can wear an 8 in a dress and I guarantee I can't wear a size 8 pant... most often a 4... probably a 2 at the Gap!!

which makes me wonder if the marilyn monroe thing was talking about dresses or pants?

If I can wear a size 6 or 8 jean at 133 pounds (never shopped at The Gap!) what size does Terri wear at 110 or 103? MINUS 4?? Or maybe children's sizes?

[Rissask]

I don't know, the whole size thing has just gotten out of hand. They're all competing to win women over psychologically so they will shop at their stores...or something.

There is size 0 now- who is a size 0??? Do you even exist if you wear a size o? What happens if you are a 0, then lose weight? yeah, it's just stupid.

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I don't know, the whole size thing has just gotten out of hand. They're all competing to win women over psychologically so they will shop at their stores...or something.

There is size 0 now- who is a size 0??? Do you even exist if you wear a size o? What happens if you are a 0, then lose weight? yeah, it's just stupid.

So pant sizes definitely have changed over the years... but they were referencing dress sizes... is that a higher number for you? I know it is for me... so I wonder why that trend to size things down hasn't hit dresses....

[Susie Q Roo]

Originally Posted by JoanieBlon

At 140 I can get into a 10 or sometimes smaller. Of course the 8 of TODAY is the 12 or perhaps 14 of say 40 years ago.

Name brand "designer" clothes seem to be VERY generous in sizing. Chicos has avoided the nasty size issue by making clothes in sizes 0, 1, 2 and 3.

At 140 pounds, I would be a size 4! Or maybe even smaller the way things have changed. Muscle really does weigh more than fat. My goal is to be any number that starts with a 15*. A size 8 would please me greatly. A solid 10 would be great in the interim.

Personally, I think size or measurement goals, or even much much better - bodyfat %, if you can find a professional way to measure it, are all better ways to determine success than scale #s.

[JoanieBlon]

Interesting article regarding sizes from the BOSTON GLOBE:

0 is the new 8

As waistlines grow, women's clothing sizes shrink incredibly

By Kate M. Jackson, Globe Correspondent | May 5, 2006
(Correction: Because of a reporting error, the name of pattern maker and author Kathleen Fasanella was misspelled in a Page One story on Friday about vanity sizing.)
Inside the dressing room at Ann Taylor, Wendy Chao found herself at a loss.
''I tried on a size 0 skirt and it was too big," said Chao, a 30-year-old graduate student of molecular biology at Harvard University. ''To me, a size 0 is antimatter; it's something devoid of any physical reality."
Chao was already mystified by how she'd shrunk from a size 8 in high school to a size 2 today, despite gaining 15 pounds in the interim. But now at size 0, she realized something curious was afoot.
''As far as I can see, size means nothing," she said. ''I am different sizes at different stores, but they're all remarkably smaller than what I wore as a scrawny teenager. In my closet, I have everything from a size 0 to a size 12." She added that a size 8 skirt she bought from Ann Taylor in 2000 is ''identical in cut" to the size 0 she bought at the store late last year.
The incongruity in Chao's closet is far from a fluke: While Americans have statistically gotten larger, women's clothing has gotten smaller -- that is, if the numbers on the size labels are to be believed. It's no secret that retailers have been playing to women's vanity for years by downsizing the sizes on garment labels, but the practice has reached an extreme in recent months with the introduction of the sizes ''double zero" and ''extra, extra small." If vanity sizing continues on this path, analysts say, it is only a matter of time before clothing sizes are available in negative integers.
In many ways we're already there, said Bridgette Raes, an image and style consultant in New York who notes that the sizes double zero and extra, extra small available at stores like Banana Republic and Old Navy are essentially negative sizes. Instead of putting a -2 size on the label, manufacturers use 00, which is the same thing.
J. Jill introduced its ''extra, extra small" size last year in response to its petite customers' demands for smaller sizes, said Lauren Cooke, a public relations manager for the company.
''We've always had size 'extra small,' but our clothing tends to be cut more generously because we cater to women over 35," she said, noting that an extra small at J. Jill is the equivalent of a size 2 or 4 at other stores. Their extra, extra small is equivalent to a size 0.
The downward evolution of sizes illustrates the extent to which retailers, apparel manufacturers, and designers are conforming to American women's obsession with wanting to be thin -- even if it's only in their minds, said Natalie Weathers, an assistant professor of fashion industry management at Philadelphia University.
In addition, the small sizes help retailers attract the junior-sized buyers -- typically girls in their teens -- to adult stores.
Vanity sizing has been a common practice in expensive women's clothing for decades, but Weathers said the practice has crept into the mass market because a wider spectrum of women -- teenagers through baby boomers -- are more preoccupied with size than ever before.
''We live in a world now where 14-year-olds shop at Victoria's Secret," said Weathers. ''On the other side, we're always hearing how 50 is the new 30."
And the gap between what's reality for most women and fantasy also seems to be bigger. While more than 60 percent of American women are overweight, women on television and on the big screen are getting skinnier and skinnier. In fact, after producers of ''Desperate Housewives" learned their star Eva Longoria is a size 00, they wrote a reference to her clothing size into an episode.
While images of Hollywood certainly feed the frenzy, there are other factors at work, said April Ainsworth, owner of VintageVixen.com, an online vintage clothing retailer. With some exceptions, manufacturers are simply making women's clothing larger and labeling them with smaller sizes. As a result, what was a size 8 in the 1950s had become a 4 by the 1970s and 00 today. The size labels just keep getting smaller, so it's no surprise they're diving below zero now, Ainsworth said.
If this trend continues, some petite women may find their own shopping options limited as the smaller sizes available at some of their favorite stores actually become too large for them.
Just ask Kelly O'Rourke, 27, of Roslindale. She loved shopping at such stores as Ann Taylor, the Gap, and J. Crew because their petite lines were cut to her silhouette. However, she said she recently found that sizes 0 and 2 are too big for her at some of these retailers.
''It's frustrating to me as a petite woman when I try on a size 2 suit and it's swimming on me because it really has the measurements of a size 6," she said.
The picture is further complicated by the fact that sizing varies among brands and stores, making it difficult for many women to know exactly what size they are. The problem has only become more acute since January 1983 when the US Department of Commerce dropped a uniform sizing system for women on the grounds that it no longer reflected the size and shape of the average consumer.
''Sizing has always shifted to match consumers' changing behaviors," said Kathleen Fassanella, a pattern maker and author who writes an apparel manufacturing blog called Fashion Incubator.
''For instance, when women stopped wearing corsets, manufacturers had to completely redesign their patterns due to the great dissatisfaction of women who were no longer wearing the undergarments."
But because women have gotten larger, Fassanella said, their clothing is cut larger today -- though many of the labels won't tell you that.

[Susie Q Roo]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

I think they're talking dress size 14, not pant size... not sure why dresses are sized bigger... I can wear an 8 in a dress and I guarantee I can't wear a size 8 pant... most often a 4... probably a 2 at the Gap!!

which makes me wonder if the marilyn monroe thing was talking about dresses or pants?

I'm the opposite - smaller dresses, larger pants. But dresses are usually fitted for the upper body and I have a big... um... lower. Sometimes though, if a dress is cut very straight, and I try on one that fits below, it absolutely falls off on top. I know not to even LOOK at dresses like that though.