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.

6'7 - geeeez!

Guessing you get extra leg room when you fly?!

FGS, a paediatrician has stated the OPs daughter is NOT overweight!

They do study for a little while to reach that conclusion, you know

Cath, that's not how the centiles work - you're not supposed to be aiming for the "50th for both" to be "perfect". :/ ("quick, cut some of his legs off, he's too tall").

FWIW, DS1 was 98th percentile for height and weight as a baby and toddler, he is now still 98th percentile for height and a bit lower for weight. He is very active, extremely leggy, and you can see all his ribs. At no point did anyone say he was overweight, because he wasn't.

I was chunky when younger but once about 7/8 me and all mine when really skinny. I am now an adult and wear age 13 clothes!

" 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"

This is also not how it works, as per my DS1 above.

I agree that that is not how it works. My DS was 98th percentile for height and weight as a baby, when he was bf and less mobile but as soon as he became mobile his weight percentile gradually fell, now somewhere between 50th and 75th at nearly 10. He is still however 98th for height. Surely if the height thing was down to being over fed he would have been chubby too.

Incorrect cath. Not sure where 5'7 at 11yrs comes out on percentiles, but back when I did track it dds always been way up top. And as a baby so was her weight. I'm very tall too, and at every stage her body has been a replica of mine. We're also both naturally skinny.
Supermodels may not all be a nutritional example for how they maintain it as adults, but I bet most of them topped height charts as kids too.
My friends now adult kids were all tall and chunky as kids, as was she. They're all extremely slim now despite no lifestyle change. In contrast I know another family where the kids are all average height and skinny, hit slim at puberty, bit chubby by late teens, and the adults are very obese.

Just avoiding the weight arguments... I have always avoided skinny jeans for DD as she doesn't like anything tight or uncomfortable. She lives in soft, stretchy tracksuit bottoms from Next, Gap or Boden (in sale/ebay). You can often get them with a real drawstring waist that is very adjustable (mine's on the skinny side so we need it tighter, but it gives you a big width range).

For school uniform trousers, we also get the soft stretchy ones – or pinafore dresses.

"My youngest is like a shire horse"

Ronald I love it, that describes her perfectly. She's just, like, really well built. It's really remarkable she came out of me as I look quite frail.

I think she really is a victim of her long body and short legs. Her trousers are always too long but her T-shirts are always too short, there's always a gap in the middle, great for tickling!

Well this thread had been quite a learning experience for me. Having always been naturally thin I've never quite seen the full extent of just how much real prejudice there is against people who aren't. No wonder so many teenage girls end up with eating disorders. I shall resign myself to shelling out for the wider fitting clothes and start preparing my gorgeous girl to be confident in the face people who will judge her perfectly healthy body as inadequate because she doesn't fit their idea of perfect.

Thanks to everyone who's been reassuring, you're all lovely :)

You need to go by her height when selecting clothes and not her age. DD turned 4 in July and is very tall too but skinny. I don't bother with trousers. DD doesn't have a school uniform so she wears whatever she wants to school. As long as she is covered and can play in the park without flashing knickers or tripping over her dress I let it go. Last year, most of the time, she wore big puffy Christmas dresses with thick cotton tights (age 6 for the height).

The big problem I have is that she wants to wear trousers. Leggings and skirts fit well enough and she's happy with that a lot of the time but sometimes she wants trousers. With the weather getting colder again I'd like to have something warmer to wear on her legs when playing outside.

I lost the will to read the thread way up there^, but yes children, like adults are different shapes and sizes and it's a PITA trying to find clothes when they don't fit the 'norm'.

Would something like these fit? Gap have some nice, stretchy, soft trousers that might work and they're on offer atm.

Then I would buy for her size and have them altered by a tailor. I do this with my sons clothes as he takes a size 5 for crotch area but is a size 4 height wise. I'm in the US and pay $3 for each pair of his trousers to be altered at the waist (they put an elastic band in them) and the hem.

I've been struggling for the first set of school uniform for a lean Ds1. I'm going to have to ask school if I can get a generic jumper as the smallest logoed jumpers will not be grown into while he is in infant school. The width of the shoulders plus length of the sleeves means I'm nearly having to roll half the sleeves up to find his hands. This makes the dress like length a minor issue.

I went to M&S for adjustable waist trousers and still ended up with age 2-3. The 3-4s pulled in but looked likea sack of spuds with so much excess fabric.

His weight was monitored through the dieticians for allergies and he's always been a well proportioned but petite 25th centile on height and weight with a fine display of ribs. As one of the oldest of the children graduating from nursery, he didn't compare as small as I expected although far from tall.

DS2 has a stockier build. Very similar display of ribs to Ds1, just a broader rib cage and prone to gaining lean muscle. He's lost the toddler look early, and is built for power. Born slightly smaller than Ds1 he caught up immediately and since a few months old has remained a consistent 6lb lighter despite a 2yr age gap. Their chest size is about the same. They share age 2-3 jogging bottoms as the cuffs manage the differing leg lengths, but their waists are the same.

Yes childhood obesity is a genuine concern in society , but there is still a broad variety of healthy, and it is frustrating when a healthy child seems to be a non existent size.

I have twins one is a stocky well built lad... The other is 3 inches taller all knees and elbows. Neither fit their age clothes... dh is always constantly putting the wrong clothes on the wrong boy

Mrs mook buy next slim fit. Its 5cm smaller in the waist and is a revelation honestly . No need to drag stuff in and have the baggy bits hanging.

Dd is 75th height and between 25th and 50th for weight it fits perfectly.

MrsMook,

BhS is also really good for school trousers that actually fit the slender. They have a handy online size chart that you can read off the correct size to buy for a specific combination of waist and height.

I see you being defensive when anyone 'dares' suggest she's fat, and I understand that must be hard to hear for a parent as you don't want it to be true, but you are perfectly describing an over-fed, 'fat' child. I don't know how you can't see that from your own description. She's too big for her own age clothes, and even the next ones up, (and the one after that)? She's very tall (as over-nourished children tend to be), but even correct height clothes don't fit her width-wise (even though most people agree that clothes are very generously proportioned), and aside from just being big framed, it's not just lean body mass, you admit it's fat too, and that her belly sticks out? That sounds exactly like she's fat. Sometimes the simplest, most obvious explanation is right.

As for if kids 'have to' be skinny. They don't have to be anything. But there is an obesity epidemic, and with so many overweight children, the perception of 'normal' has been skewed. Healthy kids do look skinny (check out video of the 1960/70s - doesn't everyone look 'skinny'?) compared to the average today. If a child looks chubby, they are fat.

I don't really see your point to be honest. Clothes of age sizes are made for the average of that age group, your DD does not fit that average so you need to buy a bigger size. She isn't being oppressed or anything , there is no prejudice in this situation.

My youngest twins are enormous for their age, all good and healthy, just tall and broad like me, but skinny, it really is their bones. I buy them bigger clothes, no big deal. As for your DD, as long as you don't make an issue about things like this she'll be fine, I have that perfectly described Shire Horse build, I've never had any problems, why would I, it's a non issue.

Very, very few people are genetically/metabolically predisposed to be fat. There are a few rare conditions that do this (prader willi syndrome for example) but not many. Our metabolic rates don't vary much and there is a lot of denial about obesity.

However, it is undoubtably true that there are range of healthy body shapes for humans. Think of the build of a Kenyan marathon runner, a west African 100m sprinter, a Tongan second row rugby player and a Japanese gymnast. Totally different, but all super fit. Or if you're going within one population, look at Bradley wiggins vs chris hoy. Both ultra fit, both very different shapes.

Kids also grow at very different rates. Both my brothers and I ate like horses. At sixteen he was six foot and I was four foot ten and Waif like. I'm just short. Height genetics is pretty complex and there is an interaction with nutrition but nothing I ate would have turned me into a five foot eleven supermodel. My friend who used to swim for her country is fit as a flea, low body fat and has shoulders like a prop forward - she just can't get tops to fit.

If the op's child is fit and healthy, with good diet and excercise habits the her only issue is where to get clothes!

op different shops have different body dimensions they use. I find gap long bodied and next very short bodied, for example. It may just be a case of shopping around till you find something that fits your daughters body shape.

We have the same problem with DD. When she was only 9 she was already too big for size 12-13 in Fat face or Next clothes.

In Yr 5 she was already 5ft 4" and taller than several of her teachers. There wasn't a pinch of fat on her, but she was very athletically built. Broad shoulders, long legs, muscley thighs etc. She plays 2 sports at county level and all the other girls on her squads are equally athletic and strong looking. It's slightly disconcerting being surrounded by 11 and 12 year old girls who are taller than you and could easily beat you in an arm wrestle. We Mums often moan about getting clothes to fit.

By the time she started Yr 7 she was 5ft 7" and physically much stronger than her new PE teacher.

She actually has a very neat waist so all her jeans need to be taken in at the waist by MIL.

"you are perfectly describing an over-fed, 'fat' child."

And you know better than the child's paediatrician? Because hey, a doctor couldn't possibly know better than you, a random person on the internet who has never met the child. FFS. I believe the OP is being "defensive" because SHE HAS ALREADY TOLD US THE CHILD ISN'T OVERWEIGHT and people like you keep banging on about how she must be fat or "in danger of being fat" or "she's only so big and tall because you feed her too much" etc.

Agree Gap is long-bodied, fits my long-torsoed DS2 well.

Actually very often food doesn't play nearly as big a part as genetics. Our other DD probably eats half as much again as her sister, and although nearly as tall has the build of a professional ballerina. Her waist and shoulders are very slender, ankles and wrists are tiny.

TRexingInAsda I said her tummy gets bloated, ie full of air. She has gastrointestinal issues which is why she's under a paediatrician. Also, if she's tall because she's over nourished why is my other equally well nourished child so short?

If you'd read the whole thread, which I'm guessing nobody's got the strength for by this stage, you'd see several posts about her proportions which I've now realized is the main issue. Trousers that fit her width wise are always too long, but T shirts are always too short. Are you suggesting I'm somehow overfeeding her torso while underfeeding her legs?

Thanks for those who've suggested GAP, I'll give it a try.