To wonder about the plus size clothing in next

[MumNWLondon]

Following on from all the threads about taxing fizzy drinks.

I took 4 YO DS to next to buy him some jeans. We picked up almost all the ones they had in an age 4 and headed to the changing room.

I'd describe DS as having normal build for 4 YO, definately not skinny but probably very slightly on thin side of average. Basically normal for 4 YO.

Anyway, noticed once we got to changing room some of the jeans were labelled as being 4+ for pus size kids so we didn't try them on. But even the normal ones were HUGE on the waist and legs, would have required me to really pull the elastic in the waist in and honestly could have fitted both his legs in one of the legs, looked ridicolous. Anyway we did find a skinny fit pair which were fine.

Now I am wondering - how fat would a child have to be to wear the normal fit ones and even more so the plus size one. FInd it quite worrying. AIBU to wonder about the demand for these trousers? There are 20 boys in his class and none of them look fat at all.

DD went to school this morning in a pair of Gap age 6 shorts over Next age 5 leggings (for warmth) and Sainsbury's age 7-8 tights.

She will shortly be 11.

She's grown a lot taller this year so finally fits her age in the leg in trousers but they still tend to be huge on the waist. Have some Boden age 10 trousers that don't have an adjustable waist and she is constantly hoiking them up.

But surely we can agree that children come in different shapes and sizes without having to bandy about labels like 'obese' or 'malnourished'? We have some jeans given by a friend whose DD (also 10) couldn't get them over her bottom, but they are waaay too big for DD. Friend's DD isn't fat though - just a different shape, as DD has no bottom at all.

"But surely we can agree that children come in different shapes and sizes"

Totally agree.

"But surely we can agree that children come in different shapes and sizes"

Of course. But not all the sizes and shapes are healthy.

For those of you who have body fat scales, this link shows the percentiles from age 5.

DS's ribs are visible, I thought it was completely normal

It is, Kew. Or at least it was in the 70's, when I was a kid.

Surely the problem is that children come in fairly different shapes and sizes just as adults do but for some reason the shops expect all children that are the same age to be the same size.

Misdee your DD's are beautiful!

With regard to cordonbleugh's DD (sorry to come back to her again but this is not nasty, I promise) she is a similar height:weight ratio to my DS2. She is IIRC 112cm and 3st 7lb, DS2 is 110cm and 3st 3lb. She is on the 89th centile for weight and he is on the 85th. However, she looks "chubbier" than my DS, and is in bigger sized clothes.

Does the fact that she looks bigger mean that she is more dangerously close to being overweight? Of course it doesn't. But people are quick to judge based on appearance.

Oh, and I should have added, DS2's ribs are visible

Does the fact that she looks bigger mean that she is more dangerously close to being overweight?

Well, it might. The fact that she's in larger clothes than your DS suggests that your DS has more heavy muscle which is presumably healthier.

Yes, what I meant was children come in different shapes and sizes within the range of what is broadly regarded as 'normal'.

thefurryone if only shops did expect children of the same age to be the same size! It's the range of sizes across different shops that causes us problems.

I've always had more luck with French clothes, which a) seem more uniform in terms of sizing, and b) seem to fit DD at roughly the age on the label. Though since she has grown about 4in in the leg in the last 6 months, that may no longer be the case length-wise, at least.

bruffin, adams clothing was also odd IMO. skirts too big, tops would shrink upwards and expand outwards after a couple of washes. i gave up buying stuff from there years before it shut down.

theladyevenstar, thank you, i think they are gorgeous girls but am very biased.

i dont want them to grow up concerned about their weight as am big myself, but wasnt that big as a child, but was labelled the big one out of my sisters. i look back on pics of me as a youngster and i wasnt large at all.

all dd's are very active, dd1 does dance and gym, dd2 jusr never stops, neither does dd3.

Not having ribs visible isn't an indication of a weight problem though, just as having visible ribs isn't an indication of being underweight.

DS has just turned 4, is 107cm and 16kgs and his ribs aren't visible at all. They used to be, but his position on the BMI chart hasn't changed from borderline underweight/healthy weight.

Most people have a very skewed idea of what a healthy child should look like.

In children their ribs and collar bones should generally be visible. Their legs should be slim and they should have slightly knobbly knees. They shouldn't have 'boobs' or fat arms.

We have lost sight of what is a normal healthy weight, people's perceptions of overweightness and obesity is very warped. Just about all parents of overweight children overestimate how much food they need in terms of portion sizes.

Children do come in all shapes and sizes, and BMI and the scales aren't the be-all and end-all but having a 5 year old in age 8 or 9 clothes that need taking up isn't likely to be a good sign.

"tops would shrink upwards and expand outwards after a couple of washes"

Agree with that

'In children their ribs and collar bones should generally be visible'

Says who?

portion sizes surely vary according to child (or adult?) appetite. You can have a huge appetite and be healthy weight/healthy in general.

wubblybubbly the consultant paediatric endocrinologist that did my growth and development training sessions, along with the paediatric dietitian.

Generally speaking if the collar bones and ribs are not visible there is too much abdominal fat. I don't mean you should be able to count them from 25 yards, just that the lower ribs in particular should be obvious on visual examination.

Well that does qualify your earlier statement a little Sidge.

I have no idea what a visual examination entails, so I can't say if DS's ribs would be visible under that criteria, but they certainly aren't visible to the naked eye when standing in front of me, with his arms by his sides.

He is nowhere near overweight and no, I'm not kidding myself.

Well perhaps because it's a load of shite?

DS is only just in the 'healthy weight' BMI band, he's only just gone into it as he was always at the top end of underweight, but I can't see his ribs.

Great idea to panic parents that their kids are too fat based on something as unscientific as whether they can see their ribs.

I'm 2 stone overweight, but my ribs are visible, I've got massive bloody ribs!

That wouldn't be the only criteria wubblybubbly.

You would also take into account height, weight, fat distribution, BMI and waist circumference.

That's exactly what I'm saying though!

'Not having ribs visible isn't an indication of a weight problem though, just as having visible ribs isn't an indication of being underweight.'

It means nothing on it's own.

Oh I know, I think we're saying the same thing overall!

I never intended it to be taken in isolation, hence all the other blurb in my post.

I was trying to point out to all posters in general that perception of weight in children is skewed, and visible bony prominences is one factor when looking at a child.