T Nation

Size 14 is the New 10 - Overweight is Relative


You can actually go into stores and be a size 14, but walk out with clothes that say that you are a 10. I wonder if this applies to all sizes....hmmm.

I'm new to posting so I'm not sure if this belongs here. I just thought you might be interested.

Hey, at least people feel good, right?

Sorry if this has been done before.


Yea I go into one store try on a pair of 32 waist pants and there a little too big.
Then went into H&M for some dress pants, I cant even get my knees into the legs of the 32 pants.


On the women's sizes, a woman I know mentioned she wears a size zero.

Now she is fairly short, not much over 5 feet, and I think is about 120. I am pretty sure that in the past the same size would have been called a size 4.


you could always pull a j.seinfeld and write the size you want into your pants.


Yup, sizes have definitely changed. I had an old Ann Taylor skirt that fit decently in a size 2, now I can barely wear a size 0 from them. I can't wear a 0 from J Crew at all - I can almost pull buttoned up pants straight off. I can however wear H&M size 4 quite well. For reference I am 5'6" and was 108 (now 115).




JERRY: I don't wanna be a 32.

GEORGE: I'd kill to be a 32.

JERRY: She said I wasn't sponge-worthy. Wouldn't waste a sponge on me!


I never understand why people forget that women's dress sizes are based on circumference measurements of hips, waist and bust.

Size 12 might mean a petite woman(should be a size 8 say) with a lot of fat making her up to a 12 or might mean a tall woman with wide hips but normal bodyfat levels being a size 12. If this normally size 12 woman was fat she'd maybe be a 16.

They would be better to concern themselves with waist to hip ratio or simply how they look in a mirror.

With men for example, a naturally broad shouldered man might never be able to fit into a large shirt no matter what his fat levels due to the distance around his shoulders(bone structure/frame size). Maybe his natural size is XL. Accept it.

On the other hand a fat man who normally wears an XL shirt, trains, diets and now fits into his normal size which for him is a large as his frame size does not require an XL shirt.

Does anyone get what I'm saying?

Women trying to shrink to a size that only petite women can do is like a middleweight boxer trying to make the weight for a flyweight fight. Different builds, not possible.


I see what youre saying. Alot of women can't accept that they are bigger people just like some men are bigger men. Some women do have larger frames, broader shoulders and narrower hips and wide hips and narrow shoulders.

But i think the spirit here is that sizes are being changed more in accordance with what people want to see as opposed to the actual reality.


None of this was in dispute in the thread: the topic was the fact that they are now labelling clothes of the same actual size with much smaller label sizes.


Ok I see. In that case they need to make stricter standards for measurements.


I definitely notice it.. i try on one brand of shirt and its one size.. i go and take another shirt of a different brand and its to big or to small.


There aren't really any standards - they vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.


It may seem like a bad thing but it is actually a service. Instead of size 14 girls squeezing their asses into size 2 jeans and subjecting us to those gadawful muffin tops, she is putting her size 14 ass into a size 6 thereby reducing the muffin top twofold. It just makes good sense.



As I understand it, there used to be standards for women's clothing sizes.

The thing is, at first companies "relaxed" the standards but were still in the ballpark. Now they've seemingly thrown them flat out the window.

And in men's clothes, label neck size was supposed to be actual. I think that one still is. Where sizes S, M, L, and XL were given, there were understood actual chest sizes that these corresponded to. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. With men's pants, the labeled waist size used to actually fit a waist of that measurement. These days, it may be a comfortable fit on a waist 4" bigger.


It's arbitrary, which is why you just have to try on your clothes. I've noticed Ann Taylor clothes in particular run a size larger than usual. Target too. I wish women could be treated like adults and just buy clothes based on our measurements.

Anyhow, Scottish-G is right. When I go shopping I get weirdly reminded of the conventional mindset -- "Oh, right, it's supposed to be extra credit if you're smaller." Well, we have different frames. And a smaller size is not automatically more desirable, at least for those of us who are also interested in physical performance and know that there's some tradeoff between thinness and strength.


I do actually find extremely frustrating that there is no standard dress sizing and it uses an arbitrary numbering that is meaningless. It is maddening to have to grab 4 different sizes of something to find the right fit because there is that much variation. Shopping online? I won't even bother anymore, unless it's MEC.ca and I know they don't change their sizing.


This has been going on for woman's clothing for a long time.

I figure it has to stop eventually!

Really, how many x's can you put before the "s" before it just becomes stupid?


There used to be no such size as zero, now we have a double zero. Will we start having negative zeros?



[i]Reller said she did not know how many pre-merger Northwest flight attendants want to wear the red dress but need a size bigger than 18.

"If the dress wasn't a tiny size 18, there would be less," Reller said. "It's a very small size 18, so that makes the numbers a lot larger."[/i]

Here is an article about flight attendants complaining that one uniform option only goes up to a small size 18.


I still see enough muffin tops to be nauseated.