to ask if size 14-16 at almost 5'8 is "fat"?

[CoolToned]

Is it?

it is waist size that matters the most, too much fat round the waist is dangerous to anyones health. i used to be 18st little did i know i would develop type 2 diabetes five years on, have lost the weight now [9 1/2st and 28" waist 5'4"] diabetes is controlled as a result with just diet. don't sweat the dress size sort out the waist anything over 34 " for a woman is too much fat.

When I was young (1970s) then thin was 10 and under (though rare to find anything smaller than a 10 on the high street), 12-14 was normal, 16 larger and 18 fat (not much over an 18 in ordinary shops)

If you start that range in the 'knock off two sizes' change for vanity sizing (as I think I understood from PP) then you get thin is 6 and under, normal is 8-10, larger is 12 and fat is 14 and above.

Given that I could often wear a modern 14 when BMI was around 30, that sounds about right.

Those of you on this year's original 'lose a stone' thread will know I have dieted a lot this year, and I now weigh roughly what I did age 20 and back then a size 10/12. I am no bigger than an 8 in modern sizing.

Depends on body shape I guess. I have an hour glass type figure, big boobs and hips but a small waist, im 5" 6. Going simply from bmi here, when is was a size 16 then yes, I was what could be considered fat as my bmi was 30. I lost weight and got my bmi down to 24.5, so a healthy weight for my height and I was still in a size 14 although some clothes I would wear a 12, mostly bottoms. By boobs didn't change size at all, back size did but not the actual boobs and that was after almost a 3 stone weight loss.

I love that dress!

I was size 14-16 and 12 stone, lost two stone and feel loads better for it. Still size 12-14 though.

I am 5ft8 too

These threads are weird. BMI is a reasonable guide to indicate if you're overweight or not, more useful than a random bunch of mumsnetters.
There will always be some outliers amongst those who do weight training or are broadly built, but generally if your BMI is more than 25 then technically you're on the heavy side.

See I'm 5.10 and even at 11 stone so well within healthy bmi range I still have to wear 14-16 to fit my hips and shoulders- I really don't think I'm fat in fact I get told I've lost too much weight whenever I'm below 11 and a half stone!
I'm very broad it's my build.

I'm 5'8" and would feel "fat" at that size. I have been a 16 and visually I didn't look "fat" really, just chunky, but I definitely felt it.

I think the terminology depends on how old you are. Lots of us have grown up saying fat is fat. In recent years people have started to use more polite terminology.

But a bit weird for OP to start a thread canvassing opinion, then everyone kicks off if some of the opinions offend them.

Personally I think Twll looks great, but not thin. But it's sad that it should even be an issue 4 months after giving birth.

well said rookie that and waist size needs to be under 34" for a woman, we might have just sorted out the nations women ! to celebrate er.. perhaps not {grin]

You also have to look at your frame size. I thought "big boned" was just an excuse but there is some truth in it.

www.healthstatus.com/health_blog/body-fat-calculator-2/frame-size-how-much-does-it-affect-your-weight/

I believe body shape is genetic. I'm an apple as my WHR is 0.78. I'm 5'4" and overweight above 10st 6ish. I eat low carb to keep my weight in the high 9s but I look emaciated in the low 9s. I end up losing weight off the hips! I did that test and I am large framed (big shoulders, large rib cage) and I would have to starve to get my waist below 28in.

When I first became aware of body shape (early 90s) I found my shape (straight up and down) was the fashionable one because no one wanted to be the dreaded pear shape. It was the era of the waif. I wonder if the androgynous shape being so desirable was a sign of the times? Ie Thatcherism/power dressing/career girls ie "like men"

Small waists are much more desired now so the pears have had a reprieve.

You look lovely Twell. Yes a size 14-16 is overweight, I am that kind of size 11.5 stone and 5ft 2inch and feel hideous despite doing cardio kickboxing exercise everyday for 40 mins for the past 3 years, and watching mostly what I eat, I cannot get rid of my jelly belly.

I think it really depends.

I'm a 14/16 and I'm 5'9

I consider myself to be quite big/fat but I've been a size 12 before so I'm going by how I felt then/how I feel now.

I do abs excercises until I am sick and still have the nasty jelly belly from hell.

Agree with the posters who say "don't worry about sizes" it is eating healthily, keeping active and testing whether we are overweight (fat is an unhelpful word) against the medical criteria, nothing else.

I am 64, love my food and having always struggled with my weight - increasingly as I age.
Got to my heaviest earlier this year at 15:5 (5ft 5in). Woke up one morning and decided drastic action was required.
Now on 800 calories a day (anything more than that and I simply do not lose weight!) fully supported diet - not a fad - and I have lost 2 stone now. Aiming for another stone at least, probably 2.

However, am aware that as I am older, losing too much can leave you haggard and with the dreaded saggy skin, so taking it all a stone at a time!

Can now get into size 14 which is thrilling for me! So I find it genuinely distressing to see posters talking about anything over a 12 as being "fat", even at 6ft!! That is ridiculous. It may/may not be overweight, depending on your shape and where you carry your weight, but that should not be a matter of subjective self-assessment!!!

People talking about how the sizes have changed have lost sight of the fact that a good part of this is because modern women's frames have changed, not just their weight. Women are taller and broader in their bone shapes than historically.

I am an hourglass shape and I would have to be very light indeed to get into some sizes as my hips (bone not fat) are quite wide, no matter my weight. I am lucky in that I don't carry my weight on my middle.

Twll you look lovely for someone PP. I'm guessing you are slightly heavier than usual? If that was your normal weight I would guess your bmi was higher than 25. But in all honesty the body needs time to recover after pregnancy. I didn't even attempt to shift excess weight until my child was 1!

OP - it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.....it's what you think. I'm 5ft 6 and a size 14 on the bottom and between a 12/14 on top depending on the fit.
Personally I'd prefer to be a size 12.....but I wouldn't really consider myself to be FAT!!

Ignore all the over size 10 haters......it must be amazing looking down over the world from their gold plated pedestal!!

Be whatever you want to be!!

It depends on if you mean standard sizing eg 34.5" bust or vanity sizing eg 40" bust. If you are going on modern clothes sizes you are almost definitely overweight to some degree. If you are not then I apologise. I think as a society we have gotten so used to seeing overweight people our view of normal has been warped.

Nobody is going to walk into a high street shop and ask for an old "standard" size 14, please. It can't be bought, so it's pointless harping on about it.

adner i don't know you but i'm concerned about the 800 cals a day thing, that doe not sound good in any context in the long term and tbh not at all healthly.

This is me recently a couple of weeks ago. I don't know what else I cod do to get rid of the day belly but not blooming eat

mrsfuzzy

I understand your concern, but I am doing it all with doc's approval and there is a very careful plan for weaning me off the diet once I reach target.

As I said, any more than that and I simply do not shift the weight - maybe half a pound a week if I was lucky (that was on a 1,000 calories a day so still pretty strict) That meant that I was simply losing motivation and cheating. At that rate I would have been dieting for nearly 2 years (Which was never going to happen ...)
As you age, your calorie requirement drastically reduces anyway.

There was a difference between a regulated size structure - which did take account of population shape. The standards were re-valorised every 5-10 years, and proportions were different for the petite and tall ranges (though then as now, tall ranges were pretty rare).

But didn't 'ease' for size - something that has definitely happened - even manufacturers admit.

Agreeing with Mrsfuzzy about 800kcal per day. It's not something you should keep up, even at 64. The closer you get to a healthy weight, the more likely you are to lose muscle, which will make it more likely that you end up saggy and more likely to be unable to maintain a healthy weight. You also need to take bone health into consideration - bone density can be depleted on long term very low calorie diets.

I've just lost a stone in 15 weeks, taking me to the top of healthy weight range. I realistically need to lose another stone, but my target for that is 9lb between now and Christmas and the rest between Christmas and Easter. I'm consuming anything from 1200 to 1800 calories per day and using my fitness pal to track my food intake, etc.

KAM you look awsome, if you are tall you carry the weight better, I am 5ft 2 and do not carry 11 and a half stone very well at all. Despite all my excercise.

It does not make it easier that my mums side of the family are from Cyprus and carry their weight at the bottom, even when I was 7:5 stone many many moons ago, I still carried my weight at the bottom and my top was very slim.