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.

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

I think there's some dogwhistle thing where if someone mentions "I cannot find clothes to fit me/DD/the dog" or anything relating to size, people leap in with OBESITY DENIAL TIMB BOMB concern-trolling (with possible reference to how amazingly thin, disciplined, virtuous, "lean", energized, healthy, going-to-live-to-100-with-all-their-own-knees they themselves/their DD/their dog are) to without ACTUALLY READING THE THREAD. Or even the OP.

There are people who are genetically pre-disposed to carrying fat. I saw a great study on an American man who was an ultra triathlete and the fittest, healthiest person on the planet. He has a huge belly which was attributed to his Inuit/Siberian genes.

But in general I agree with everyone. Fat kids are generally eating unhealthily or not exercising enough. Being stocky or large framed is not necessarily the same as being fat.

The weight issue is a red herring on this thread I think. The ops paed has said her dd is healthy, so she's not fat or anything, just bigger.

The clothes issue is more pressing. Elasitcated waisted jeans from next are a godsend, as both my dcs are tall and skinny. You need to find a shop to suit your DDs body shape.
If you can't find jeans, try knitted dresses or skirts and leggings.
Post on the style and beauty thread for more advice for your DDs clothes.

Clothes are made to fit the majority of people, in general - retailers want to sell to as many people as possible. Nothing to do with them trying to make people be skinny, it's just business for them.

I have honestly never seen any children's clothesd designed for 'skinny' children. I see them built for normal sized kids, with adjustable waists for the slimmer ones. Where do you shop op?

Height is 80% determined by genetics, with 20% being down to nutrition and environmental factors, so to suggest that someone could actually control that is a little wide of the mark and totally irrelevant to the OP

Manor, my DD's both wear a size above their ages. They are both pre-pubescent. Neither one is fat, truly. They are Amazons. They have nipped in waists, six-pack stomaches, muscular thighs, long legs and broad shoulders. This is all from their father. They aren't the archetypical little girls, in terms of body shape. But, I still think they are beautiful. Strong and solid can be good too.

You are deluded.if you are having to roll up trouser legs then your DC is too fat

Despite the GP saying otherwise. Blimey OP, hope you realise a random Mumsnetter knows your child better than the GP!

Ditto paul. Although I'd say modern kids sizes are more made for chubby than what I'd call normal. Of course there are stockier but perfectly healthy kids like ops, but there's also a lot of overweight kids around which is why I imagine kids clothes are so generous. And fwiw the majority of kids I know who find clothes too long for their width are overweight, but not all. One of dds friends is easy 6" shorter and twice as wide, but neither has a scrap of fat. They're just very different builds, different stages of puberty and do different sports hence different muscle shape. I'm not sure why it should therefore be assumed ops dd is a heart attack waiting to happen from one post. I bet the Williams sisters aren't the same clothes size as darcey bussell, doesn't mean we all assume they need to lose weight and become so.
The height thing is mainly bollocks. You can over feed a child to the point they have a growth spurt earlier than they otherwise would, but it doesn't make them any taller as an adult than if you'd fed them suitably. My 11 yr old isn't 5'7 as a result of force feeding pies, its her genes same as eye colour or anything else.
Metabolism I think it's nature and nurture, and how much of each varies between individuals. I don't agree fat is always hereditary though, it's mainly the fact lifestyle and eating habits are passed on.

We have the opposite problem. I have to get the next size up for all of mine but we struggle with the width of clothes. DS1 is very athletic in build, wider in the shoulder but slim, so tops look ok but trousers look daft if you can see the waist as they are so pulled in. DS2 is narrow all over, so we have to be careful that everything is long enough without looking silly on the neck and shoulders and waist. DD I think looks very average (Youngest in her class but one of the tallest, but average in terms of weight to height if that makes sense) we struggle very much with the waists with her too although tops look better as she has got a decent pair of shoulders on her also.
Op have you tried Tesco for clothes? School insists we get our uniforms from there and I just can't as they are too short and wide for my lot.i have no idea what some of the other mums do. There are some really petite girls in her class. Sainsbury's is similar. Marks, bhs and I think next offer a choice of fits. The slim fit is brilliant for mine so maybe the normal or the plus fit for that extra bit of room. H&M tend to do slender legs with wide waists. For anyone with short and stocky little ones mothercare is brilliant. The only thing I could ever get from there were dresses as they just ended up being worn a little short.

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.

This is the most ridiculous comment I have read in a long time.....

It's clothes manufacturers' idiocy. My DS is skinny and most available trousers are tight at the legs for him. He's 10!
Probably the current bloody fashion is for skinny jeans. For boys too. Sigh.

You are deluded.if you are having to roll up trouser legs then your DC is too fat

Ah, ah.

Not necessarily. My DS is most definitely not fat. Far from it. But most trousers are way too long. His height is somewhat above average, so it's not that either.

"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"

ManorGreyhound

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU?!!!!!

My daughters last measurements put her at just under the 98th percentile for both height and weight. The qualified medical professionals who actually examine my daughter agree she probably just takes after my MIL who was also a very big child and reached her adult height early and then everyone else caught up. She is now a perfectly average sized adult.

FWIW DD2 is at the bottom end of the graph for both height and weight. Should I take responsibility for starving her?

My averagely slim DDs are swamped by Primark and Tesco trousers and skirts and the tops are also far too wide, so may be worth looking at. M and S are also cut large in some things (and I think have different widths?).

I'm sorry but girls should be skinny, by skinny I mean of a normal weight/slim build, children are not meant to be fat or "chubby". I do agree that sizes of clothes vary from store to store but generally children should be in a size that reflects their age, with the exception of naturally tall/short children and if they're not then they are either underweight or overweight.

"My DS is most definitely not fat. Far from it. But most trousers are way too long. His height is somewhat above average, so it's not that either."

Same with my DS2, poor child inherited my "long torso, short legs" physique. He's also quite skinny. DS1 (the one I have clearly overfed into tallness) has more of his dad's build, which is all leg.

Misses the fact that people's weights and heights have distribution curves. And that very few are at the "ideal" or "normal" range, and there are plenty at the tails of the curves.

Cath, how can every girl be of a slim build? Whether it be an adult or a child, male or female, not everyone has a slim build. Like i said upthread, my dd doesn't a have bit of fat on her, she is sporty and she has muscle! Lots of muscle. I wouldn't say she has a slim build either. So in your opinion that makes her overweight?

She has boobs already too. They came in fast. So her top sizes are above her age range.

Genetics has a whole lot to do with it too!

"I'm sorry but girls should be skinny, by skinny I mean of a normal weight/slim build, children are not meant to be fat or "chubby". I do agree that sizes of clothes vary from store to store but generally children should be in a size that reflects their age, with the exception of naturally tall/short children and if they're not then they are either underweight or overweight."

For the umpteenth time, THE CHILD IN QUESTION IS NOT OVERWEIGHT. I know everyone loves to talk about how "ooh, we've forgotten what a normal weight looks like, everyone is so fat, lovely healthy children in the 50s would look like famine victims compared to the repulsive wobbling blobs of today, etc.", but the child in question has been judged by an actual doctor to be a normal weight for her height. The problem in the OP's post is that most clothes she's found seem to be aimed at children with a different build to her daughter. Which is entirely possible without the child being "fat" or "chubby".

My youngest is like a shire horse
She is wearing clothes two years older than her age she is very very coordinated sporty etc
The other two are very petite and wraith like and can trip over themselves whilst sitting still

They look to be different breeds of humans...like their father and I

Ronald

I understand the concept of a bmi chart and I get that most people assume that if a child's height is in exact correlation to their weight ie 75th for both height and weight then they cannot possibly be overweight, but this isn't true. A child who is on the 50th for both would be classed as "perfect". A child on the 75th for both would be classed as slightly over average but not neccesarily overweight or have any issues but a child who is on the 98th for height and weight, I'm sorry but that is overweight. A child who is on the 98th for height will stop growing taller eventually but will most likely grow above and beyond the 98th for weight and that, I'm afraid means the child is overweight.