AIBU to think young girls shouldn't have to be skinny?

[Pseudo341]

DD5 is 5 and is what you would describe as a "big child", always at the top end of all the growth charts and a few sizes up in clothes from her age.

Ever since she moved into age 2-3 years clothes (shortly after her 1st birthday) all the trousers are designed to be skinny fit and simply won't fit her. I used to be able to get away with boys trousers but now she's in age 7 clothes they all seem to be tight too, I can't get anything to fit.

It appears I'm now faced with the possibility of having to buy even bigger size trousers and taking the legs up because there's only so many layers of rolls you can manage in the bottoms before they become uncomfortable and look absurd.

She's literally a head taller than some of her classmates, she's not overweight (consultant paediatrician she's seen for years for unrelated issue confirms this). She eats healthily and gets plenty of excercise, she's just got a bit of meat on her.

I appreciate lots of children are naturally thin but there seems to be this assumption that that's how they should be. We seem to be finally getting to grips with the idea that some adults naturally have a bigger build then others, why can't it apply to kids? She's just genetically predisposed to be big and I expect will always carry a bit of weight on her. Why is there anything wrong with that?

In case anyone thinks I have anything against those who are naturally thin, I'm a life long natural stick insect, madam has inherited her size from her Dad's side.

"Some people are genetically predisposed to having larger appetites and/or gaining fat more easily than others,"

No, they're not. Some people are just greedier (consume more calories) and lazier (move less) than others.

The amount of fat a person carries is entirely down to net calorie consumption. Metabolic rates vary very little from person to person.

I know what the OP means.

A lot of children are very very skinny. My brother was like that - exceptionally thin. These children are often (but not always) long limbed too.

Other children aren't remotely fat but a 'normal size.'

A lot of clothes shops do assume tall skinny kids are the norm. Especially girls.

I find the opposite with the waists though
waists are always massive.

legs are always long and the skinny style have stupidly small feet openings. but generally these days clothes come up huge around the waists.

"Parents really need to take more responsibility for the size of their DCs."

But the OP has already said that her child's paediatrician has said she is a healthy weight. I don't think she's saying "my child is really overweight but hey, there's nothing I can do about it", she's saying "my child is big and there's nothing I can do about it".

Certainly we're not meant to be overweight, but we're not all designed to be built like whippets either. I have the kind of build/system where I have a big frame and build muscle very easily, so even at a healthy weight and low body fat I'm not skinny, I have big hips, broad shoulders, and muscly legs and clothes designed for the more, er, waif-shaped persons among us just don't fit me.

I've noticed a very annoying trend here for people to leap in on any discussion about size and claim that anyone who is heavier or bigger than they/their DCs are are clearly IN DENIAL ABOUT THEIR OBESITY AND ARE GOING TO DIE YOUNG OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS, WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE NHS, GET SOME SELF-CONTROL, STOP EATING DIRTY DIRTY PIES etc. It's a healthy weight range, not a "the lower the better!" range.

I have the opposite problem. Dd needs 5-6 length but 3-4 waist and hips.

OP have you tried Vertbaudet? They do several trousers in skinny/medium/plus fit and they aren't overpriced imo. A few in the sale last time I looked.

we're not all designed to be built like whippets either

Exactly. There's a range of 'normal and healthy' even for adults.

Exactly leedy. There is a healthy weight range and naturally some DCs will be at the bottom end of it and some at the top. It doesn't mean that the ones at the bottom end are morally better than the ones at the top, provided they're all within normal range and have a healthy diet and active life style.

I appreciate that childhood obesity is clearly a concern, but just as adults have different frames, so do children. It took me a long time to accept that due to my broad shoulders, hips and large shoe size I'm never naturally going to be at the bottom of the BMI scale, indeed if I was I'd be unhealthy, I briefly managed to get to the lower end in my early twenties through borderline bulimia and chain smoking.

Some DCs clothing comes up small, some big. I find John Lewis sizings to be on the narrow side, M&S fine, Sainsbury's huge, Gap about right.

If a paediatrician has said that OP's DD is fine, then I'm not sure why we internet armchair types who have never seen her can judge differently based on such limited information.

"Some people are genetically predisposed to having larger appetites and/or gaining fat more easily than others,"

No, they're not. Some people are just greedier (consume more calories) and lazier (move less) than others.

The amount of fat a person carries is entirely down to net calorie consumption. Metabolic rates vary very little from person to person."

Metabloic rates may vary very little, but where a person is most likely to store fat and general build is determined by genetics.

Oh and as I have various boys staying here for sleepovers from time to time, when I gather up their clothing I check the sizes as DS is towards the top end of the scale but wears clothing appropriate for his age.
Even some of the whippet thin ones are wearing tops/joggers that are say a year above their actual age - may be length, size whatever I don't know. The only one who routinely has clothing 3-4 years above his age group is overweight.

my ds1 is skinny yet we are finding skinny jeans (esp next) way too tight particularly on the legs. normal jeans swamp him. have discovered tesco basic blue denim jeans are the best fit.

I'm with ManorGreyhound. Fat kids turn into fat adults so you want your kids to stay healthily thin for as long as you can rather than setting them up for a lifetime of bullying and misery.

"It took me a long time to accept that due to my broad shoulders, hips and large shoe size I'm never naturally going to be at the bottom of the BMI scale"

Ditto, I think the last time I was even near the bottom of the healthy weight range for my height I was a flat-chested teenager who hadn't finished going through puberty. I came close a few years ago due to an exciting combination of illness, medication for said illness, and BF a very hungry baby, and it didn't look good.

where a person is most likely to store fat and general build is determined by genetics.

I'd agree that where a person stores fat is genetic (largely), it does rather miss the point that it is better to eat fewer net calories and not store it in the first place.

Height, although partly genetically determined, is in fact also to a great extent determined by net caloric intake.

"Fat kids turn into fat adults so you want your kids to stay healthily thin for as long as you can rather than setting them up for a lifetime of bullying and misery."

FFS, she hasn't said her child is fat. An actual doctor has told her that her child isn't fat. She is not "setting her up for a lifetime of misery" because she's both bigger and taller than her peers. Please to be taking your concern-trolling elsewhere.

"Height, although partly genetically determined, is in fact also to a great extent determined by net caloric intake."

Are we aiming for our children to be as short as possible as well?

I'd agree that where a person stores fat is genetic (largely), it does rather miss the point that it is better to eat fewer net calories and not store it in the first place.

Height, although partly genetically determined, is in fact also to a great extent determined by net caloric intake.

Everyone stores fat. We do need a certain level of fat on our bodies to survive. Even super models store fat.

As for the height comment, that's more determined by proper nutrition, rather then simply saying caloric intake. If you eat lots of the wrong type of calories it will adversely effect your height.

Not all calories are made equal. You're thoughts on calories/weight and body types are pretty outdated and better left to the pages of the Daily Mail.

It's more than likely that OP's DC would be less big and tall had they been fed less though. OP has to take responsibility for that.

The problem is that all children the same age are expected to be the same size all round. I have the opposite problem, op have you tried plus fit from the Next directory?

"It's more than likely that OP's DC would be less big and tall had they been fed less though. OP has to take responsibility for that."

But why should she want her to be less big and tall IF SHE'S PERFECTLY HEALTHY? Or are you just taking the piss now?

My own DS1 is very tall (largely, I believe due to his very tall father), should I have been trying to stunt him? Maybe I could have encouraged him to take up smoking in preschool...

This is worth a listen

My point is that people are very quick to pass off physical traits such as height and weight as being entirely out of their control, when in fact they are not.

Metabolic rates do appear to vary relatively little (although I'd be interested to know whether that is true across different genetically diverse populations as well as within a single more homogenous population) but it's certainly true that both individuals and populations differ in build and in how much and where they tend to store fat. Individuals also differ in their responses to hunger cues, and I doubt this is entirely learnt behaviour.

The question for the OP to ask herself is whether her child is just naturally sturdy or whether there is a potential overweight issue (which is an easy problem to solve at 5). BMI is a pretty good guide to this as long as used with common sense (a naturally broad, muscular child on the upper BMI limit probably does not have a serious weight problem).

"My point is that people are very quick to pass off physical traits such as height and weight as being entirely out of their control, when in fact they are not."

But so what if they're not? There are no particular health disadvantages to being tall (unless you're, like, Robert Wadlow levels of tall) and some social advantages. Ditto there is nothing wrong with not being at the bottom end of the healthy weight range for your height. As I've said, the OP has been told by an actual doctor that her child is not overweight, so doom-mongering about how she is being set up for a life of ill-health and misery seems waaaaay OTT. Or do you feel we should be more like South Korea, where a lot of women's clothes only come in the one size that's socially acceptable for women to be?

Admittedly big height spurts can have health consequences (my sister ended up with a collapsed lung and knee problems from her puberty growth spurt)....

If a paediatrician has said that OP's DD is fine, then I'm not sure why we internet armchair types who have never seen her can judge differently based on such limited information.

^^ this.

It's also utter bollocks that people don't have different metabolisms, they do.

And in terms of fat child = fat adult. Er not always, I was a very plump teen and am a tall size 10 in my late 30s.

How do you get from a discussion on ridiculous fitting clothes to judging that there is a serious problem with the op's child?

It beggars belief.