To think vanity sizing is not just about people being fatter

[goddessoftheharvest]

Not really a taat- I've been thinking about this every time it pops up on MN

Any thread about weight, there's always comments about how vintage size 12s were tiny, and the equivalent today would be a size 16. This serves to point out how people are getting gradually fatter without really noticing.

Aibu to think that might be a bit simplistic?

People nowadays have access to almost unlimited junk, yes, but they also have access to affordable vitamins, milk etc

My great granny was tiny, but she was raised on bread and tea in a slum with 8 siblings, two of them had rickets, and she was riddled with arthritis from a relatively young age

My gran (her daughter) had a marginally better upbringing, but not much- less children, better housing, more to go round, but still a restricted diet, no heating etc. She is a little taller than my great granny, about 5'3. Much healthier too, as she has had access to better food and living conditions from young adulthood

My mum is 5'4, and although she's still small, she's not as noticeably tiny as the other women in the family. Was still very poor through her childhood at times

I have had access to better food and housing etc than any of them, and I am much bigger. I am 5'6 and even at 7 stone I couldn't fit into some of my mum's clothes because my shoulders are so broad

My dad's family were poor, but they were country people. They got fresh air, sunlight, grew their own vegetables, liberated the occasional pheasant. Anecdotally they all seemed a bit taller/longer lived than the town lot

Also I see loads of old photos where the women are short, but quite round/stocky. So not necessarily fat, but not sylph like size 8 either

So aibu to think it's probably down to better nutrition and lifestyle as well? I see similar with friends my age too. We are all taller than our older female relatives. One of my friends is a power lifter and she would never fit into vintage clothes, but she is super healthy and just pure muscle- that would have been unusual back then too

I'm in my early 40s and I'm still the same weight as I was when I sat my GCSEs 25 years ago. Back then I was a size 10. When I left university 15 years ago I was a size 8. These days I'm usually a size 6 although sometimes even size 6 is huge - I'm looking at you Next.

It seems unlikely that my body shape has changed drastically enough for me to have lost 2 dress sizes without losing any weight. So dress sizes have not remained constant.

But then OP never questioned the fact that 'vanity sizing' was a reality. She asked whether the increase in size of the population as a whole was entirely down to obesity, or whether there were other factors at play.

I would say it's only really in the past couple of decades that vanity sizing has really kicked in. As a teenager I was always a 10/12. Now there are shops where I find a size 8 too big yet I've not changed in size.

How can a size getting bigger be attributed to better nutrition? I can see how you can argue that average waist size has increased due to this, but that would mean you have more people who are a size 12, not that size 12 measurements are suddenly an 8

I would say it's only really in the past couple of decades that vanity sizing has really kicked in. As a teenager I was always a 10/12. Now there are shops where I find a size 8 too big yet I've not changed in size.

How can a size getting bigger be attributed to better nutrition? I can see how you can argue that average waist size has increased due to this, but that would mean you have more people who are a size 12, not that size 12 measurements are suddenly an 8

I never thought about it like that, but I do agree with you. I think nutrition is definitely better now, despite there being more junk everywhere - my nana didn't see a banana til she was in her twenties, and her childhood diet mostly consisted of suet pudding and sugar. She'd lost all her teeth by her late teens. Actual milk (not powdered!) was a real treat in their house. Some of this was to do with rationing obviously, but even before the war it was the same for most working class families in London.

She and all her sisters suffered with osteoporosis from their forties onwards and yes, they were smaller all over than me and my similarly aged female relatives.

I once read an interesting article about the effect that nutrition has on bone density and size. We've been slowly getting bigger as a race since the Stone Age - the biggest jump was when we started cooking stuff.

Oh I'm not questioning it's a reality

I have been 7 stone at my lightest (due to illness) and just over 11 stone at my heaviest. During both times, I fitted anything from a size 8 to 14 depending on shop, style etc. It's mad really, seems totally arbitrary, I wish they'd just standardise it.

Completely agree with you goddess. And I must say the attitudes of some on this thread isn't helpful (though I don't mean people are being nasty!). For example, Barbarian, my DD (2.5) is very big for her age and would undoubtedly be in 'regular' if clothing for her age group was separated out the way you describe. Her HV was shocked to realise that DD's BMI necessitated a dietician referral. But I can see all of her ribs and there's no way her ribcage is going to get any smaller. She's also quite visibly muscular and her head measurement is above the top line on the centiles chart for her age. The dietician herself told us we didn't need to be there. Looking at children's sizing in such an arbitrary way as "look, what used to be plus size is now regular" is far too simplified to be relevant or useful.

People are more well nourished too, fo sho.

Look at baby birthweights. 40 years ago, 5-6lb was normal. Now it's considered low.
(But macrosomia was very rare.)

Does anyone else suspect that women's sizing being numbered instead of in inches/centimetres has some sort of undertone that feminists might be able to analyse?

ponders

I have wondered that too CaoNiMao

but not really come to any conclusion!

I was thinking about this yesterday! I was in Tesco and saw a lady of about 70, who was dressed in the style of a 1950s housewife with the rollered hair and she was very slim, her waist was tiny. She stood out so much against everyone else but so weird to think that was the norm back then, in both weight and making so much effort in appearance just to go shopping. I felt like a beast next to her I wondered what she thought of how everyone looks nowadays.
The thinnest I've ever been is a size 10 and I was skinny, always cold and bones sticking out. I exercised all the time and ate a very small diet. I don't know how it would be possible for me to have got smaller without becoming unhealthy.

When I was 11 I wore my great great grandmothers Victorian wedding dress into school for show and tell. I believe she was married in her early 20s.
I was an average height and weight 11 year old - and the dress fit me, although possibly a couple of inches too long.

The Victorians were teeny!

Women aren't necessarily bigger but their proportions are very different. I am a UK modern size 12 (pear shaped so everything's too big at the waist even H&M) and fit into a vintage (40s) size 12. The vintage 12 fit is perfect actually - I don't even have to try 40s clothes on, I can just buy and know they'll fit. 50s size 12 is a little bigger around the waist but still fits. 60s and 70s 12s won't get over my hips no matter how hard I try.

Barbarian and Gruffalo children's clothes are definitely getting bigger. I have a slight but average height 2 year old (just under the 9th centile weight, just under 50th for height) and finding clothes that fit her is really hard- I can basically buy clothes for her in Zara, Vertbaudet, petit bateau and baby mango. Otherwise everything is falling off and too short. She fits into some baby clothes of mine that my mother kept in age 2-3 perfectly though. She's also far and away the smallest in her group at nursery even though looking at the charts she's not unusually tiny.

I think vanity sizing has mostly hit waistlines of clothes, much less hip/thigh measurements. I am now the same weight I was 10 years ago and my clothes from then in sizes 12-14 fit me; which is the same size I take now most places- with the exception that I now need to take everything to a tailor to have them taken in at the waist.

I think it massively varies on bone structure sometimes. I'm overweight and 5'3 and could be between 7 and a half stone and 9 stone 10 and be in a healthy weight. The only time I was 7 stone I was 14 and I looked ill, I didn't look right at all. 9 and a half would do me, and I'd love to be slim - just that at 9'6 I'd look slim and healthy, but any smaller and I would look ill. I've got a friend who's the same height as me and she's 8 stone and it looks good on her, she doesn't look ill - I know I used to (and would be living on appx. 800 cals a day to achieve it because being that size isn't my natural weight - not an excuse, I was never an overweight child and only in the last few years I've gotten big - I've always been quite strong and any smaller than 9 stone and I look awful. For others, that weight suits them). That's the reason we have top and bottom bmi scales - and I'd be very happy if I fell into the top category of mine

I think the main thing why we as a country are fatter is exercise. When my parents were younger, breakfast was bread and jam and milk, packed lunch was a jam sandwich, crisps, chocolate, perhaps the obligatory yogurt. Tea was normally home cooked - but again full fat butter, dripping, gravy etc - and on weekends dessert to follow. Hardly anyone ate reduced fat anything, bread with every meal was fine as was meat, overall I'd say they worried a lot less about what they ate and just ate what they fancied. I don't think preservatives or additives helped, go back 50/60 years and it was mainly fresh food. The difference was back then hardly anyone had a car so you walked or got the bus everywhere and walking 3 miles to go somewhere was normal. Now, and I'm guilty of this, people tend to hop in the car more. I think we all worry so much more, what strikes me about my parents day is they just got on with life - ate what they wanted, walked when neccessary which was most of the time. Weight loss is usually a case of calories out are more than calories in, I don't think there's a need to fret about the salt in baked beans or the fat in cheese or the sugar in fruit, or to put our families on low carb diets, or mainline quinoa every meal. I just think we need to move more, and I really dislike the notion that carbs and fat are the devil - ok, chicken salad with fat ftee dressing has less calories than spaghetti bolognese and cheese, but the former will probably keep me full for 5/6 hours whereas the former will have me reaching for the biscuits within 2 hours. our diets now are much more advanced and 'healthier' than what our grandparents ate yet they were slimmer - while eating full fat stuff/gravy/cake/sugar in tea and I doubt they fussed over the sugars in grapes - so I think exercise is the culprit.

The point I'm trying to make isn't that children's clothing isn't getting bigger though Sugar. I'm simply tackling the assumption that children who fit these bigger clothes are overweight rather than having larger frames. We are getting taller over time. We're getting bigger feet over time. It's not a stretch to suggest that on average, we're also getting broader. As I said, my DD is big for her age but she isn't obese. Her frame is big, her head is big and she's muscular. She's been checked by HVs, dieticians and doctors. All agree that despite being 'very overweight' according to her BMI (quite why they use that measure for a 2yo I'll never know), she is healthy and doesn't need to lose weight or avoid gaining any. She's 75th centile for height and 91st for weight.

I see Gruffalo, I think it's just a bit frustrating for those of us with petite children! She's got tiny feet too (as do I) and most shops only stock "prewalkers" or very light first shoes in her size so again I have to order them in just to try them on. I understand why the shops don't stock them, as kids are getting bigger in general but it leaves few options for the ones who aren't.

If you stand me next to my mum, we are almost identical in proportions except I'm a stone heavier and 2.5 inches taller. She's 59 and I'm 31. Both size 12. We have very similar diets but in order to get down to her weight of about 9st13 I have to do either the Special K diet or Slim Fast for about 3 months - I know this as I did it for my wedding! Builds are definitely changing. My husband is about 3 inches taller than his dad too.

Gruffalo I don't really understand your post. My ds2 is very big for his age - tall, big (very deep) ribcage, noticeably muscular legs (esp thigh muscles). At age 8 he wears clothes for a 10 year old but he's still easily in the slim fit range, even though he's actually stocky not slim. If your dd is as you describe she would likely be there too, albeit wearing clothing for an older child. Yes, I'm sure there must be an occasional child whose dimensions are such that they need plus size when they're not overweight but generally they need plus size because they are. We know obesity is rocketing in children/teens to the point where we (as a society) are losing sight of what a healthy child's weight is. The huge rise in overweight children is real, with complex causes, not the result of a imperfect measuring system.

Age 2-3 is extremely one-size-fits-all for an age range that's so varied, I can get frustrated with that myself. It's even stranger when something fits DD at the waist but comes up too short on the leg!

I'm not sure how I'm being unclear Barbarian in essence what I'm saying is that clothes getting bigger is not a product only of obesity (which I'm not denying is an issue) but also because we're getting broader. And I'm also saying that we need a measure of weight vs proportion that takes that into account rather than lumping those who are broad and/or muscular but healthy in with those who have a weight problem and using the overall statistic as fact. Children like DD, who health professionals have confirmed is perfectly healthy and doesn't need to eat differently, come up as being very overweight if measured by BMI. It takes too few factors into account to be used as a measure of health.

Yes I think people are getting bigger (taller, broader) but theyre also getting fatter.

When i was growing up in the 60s, I was already 5'5" by the age of 12 and wearing size 7 shoes. I needed size 8 shoes but they didnt make them so i had to make do. I was considered massive back then when the average 12 year old girl was 5'2" and 7 stone and wore size 4 shoes.

Now, Im considered slim/of average height at 10st 5lb and 5'6" - Im no longer considered massive as i was as a teenager.

Incidentally, if you ever go to north america, look at the size of people there; most people are over 6' tall and well built.

Its down to better/more exercise, better nutrition and overall healthier lifestyles for some and overeating for others.

I've consistently stayed around the size 8-10 mark since reaching my adult height. Like previous generations of my family, I've failed to exceed 5ft 2. Each summer term I notice the y7s comparing their height against me and they often gleefully gloat that they're taller. Oddly my feet are 2-3 sizes smaller than everyone else with them giving up before leaving children's size ranges.

I notice I need "smaller" clothing in Next compared to the other shops I use. I still fit in my mother's size 10 dress from the 80s which fits more like a mainstream 8 today.

Cut matters. I'm a pear shape so need an 8 for my bust and waist, but a 10 to get past my thighs and bottom. My trousers are generally a 10 for this reason. Over time, I've switched brands for those that don't assume a straight size all over. ASDA never sat well on me.

My children look thin with ribs on display compared to others, but are healthy weights. I buy the slim M&S polos for school and it's one of the few times they look smart. DS1 in particular has a problem with clothes either drooping off narrow shoulders or outgrowing the length. Fortunately he loves shorts which saves waistbands being pulled in like a sack of potatoes until they're too short. At 5, he's still comfortable in age 2-3 pants, but takes a 5 in t-shirts.

I am aware that my family isn't following the wider trend in society!

Changes in weight and size aren't necessarily in proportion with increases in height. Having a small build, I have to conciously maintain my weight to a small range because it shows easily. Being taller and broader seems to have more blurred boundaries.

Despite all this, DH can seem to walk into any shop and pick up a 34 inch waist/ medium/ 15.5 inch collar and it always fits. Women's sizing is definitely more ambiguous!

tree double and triple zero already exists in the USA.

Brilliant post Captain Brickbeard. I totally agree.

I have not had any men criticise my size 12/14 figure, not one.

I have a theory about certain posters who bang on about vanity sizing and how certain sizes are fat etc. What they are really hoping is to drive other women to comfort eat and gain weight thus eliminating possible competition.

This is what it feels like to me. Ive gone from a size 28 down to a 14 and maybe SUBconciously they dont want more women floating around in their dating pool. Just a theory.

because men dont do it.