...to think that it might not really be true that the UK average clothes size for women is UK size 16?

[which1]

I just can't help but think that that's not true. That this is the average has been floating around for years I know.

But whilst I do see some people who are size 16 or above, I do not think I see so many as to tip the scales to the extent that 16 becomes the average.

I would say that the average is a UK12.

(I'm not talking about on Mumsnet as the vast majority here are pretty slim and around size 8 average from all the threads that I see either about clothes sizes or posters who mention in passing on a related topic.)

From what I've seen I can well believe size 16 is average. There are many bigger women out there.

A 28.5" waist in dressmaking patterns (which is close to what sizes were in the 50s) is just above a size 14 (which is 28").

Different areas have different demographics and you might just not see it around your place. I notice it a lot more in certain parts of the country.

Not just that. I used to travel to The Netherlands, Belguim and France quite a lot about ten years ago and was really taken aback at how much thinner the women were than they were in SE England, very noticeably so!

I'm a size 14 but everyone thinks I'm a 10. Im also a large in Zara. Im just not. I work with a woman twice as big as me who is also a 14. Clothing sizes are a complete mess.

Eating for enjoyment is vastly different from overeating because it is your only/primary source of enjoyment.

I enjoy my food but I am able to otherwise amuse myself and thats not because I am wealthy. We are comfortable financially because we stick to an ample grocery budget and proritise other avenues of amusement.

Honestly I have never set foot in a Waitrose, nor have my peers most likely as the nearest one in thirty miles away. Ditto Booths.

Weight is more intrisically linked to education and motivation rather than simply financial constraints, or lack thereof.

My waist is 27", just measured it.
Hips 36", bust 37". I'm a size 10 as I have been for twenty years.
I can well believe a size 28.5" waist is bordering a size 14.
I don't give much credence to vanity sizing, unless you predominantly shop at M&S or Gap where I'm a size 4!

'I'm a size 12 and look emaciated
What height are you? Do you naturally have a slim face'

'I'm 5'7", and have a slim face and slim body. I weigh 9st 10lb'.

I am a size 8 5'7 and weigh 8.7 stone. BMI around 19.
I have been this weight & size for 25 years, however I used to wear size 12 clothes. They swamp me now. I am not skinny just a normal size.
Vanity sizing is bonkers.

I’d be surprised if the average size of people in my area was as low as 16.

I see far more very overweight people than I see very slim people. Someone who’s size 16 wouldn’t stand out as being large at all round here.

@EmeraldShamrock

I am 5 ft 2 and less than 8 stone and a size 8.

Yes I am sure you ARE a size 8 now.

25-30 years ago (and beyond,) you would have been a size 12.

I am 5 ft 2 and weighed less than 8 stone in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I was a size 12.

So you are an original size 12. Today's size 8 is yesterdays size 12, and is 'vanity sizing.'

Bollocks

I’m amazed it varies so much by area. I can think of one person - out of neighbours, friends, family, colleagues - who is under 40 and a size 16+. In my company of ~210 staff there are about 5 people I’d say are bigger than a 12 but maybe only 2 as big as a 16.

I’m a size 8 (pre-pregnancy!) and could definitely lose 10lbs. I make clothes at home and the old sizes are definitely much smaller.

It does seem to be changing fast though. I’ve noticed young people are much bigger than when I was at school (I’m 28 so not decades away). We were all beanpoles.

I vary between a 6 and 8 and these sizes are always sold out😫 they always have to be ordered In unless you are super lucky so obviously plenty of people are snapping them up as soon as they are in every morning.
I'm in London.

@rainingallday I suppose an 8 back then could be a 4 to 6.
I often wonder who buys the size 4 UK.
Though I recently watched dirty dancing I was shocked at how slender penny and baby were. It proves our mind is changed, people often tell me I am to slim, in comparison to the actress's mentioned I'd be chunkier by far.

SerenDippity "I would be very thin at the bottom end of a normal BMI." It's not the same but something about your comment reminded me of my sis's point of view on BMI and correlating size. She is a good size 16 and is definitely in the overweight category but thinks that she would look "far too skinny" as a 12, and if she was an 8-10 or at the lower end of a heathy BMI she thinks she would be actually emaciated rather than just slim.

This is because she is so accustomed to her weight, and also in her mind she is convinced she is a "normal" or "average" weight/size (at a size 16), that anything less eg a 12 is "skinny" and an 8-10 (and its related place on the BMI chart ie still within a healthy weight) would be "emaciated".

She doesn't believe she could ever be a size 8-10. Not because of willpower but just that it wouldn't be physically possible. It is of course physically possible, it's physically possible to be size 4 or 6 but in her mind that size doesn't really exist except on paper.

Apologies for not reading the full thread to check if someone already posted this, but this is a public service announcement on behalf of statisticians to anyone who has forgotten what an average is.

To find the average of a distribution of variables you add them all together then divide by the number of items.

The average of
10, 10, 10, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 14, 14, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 32 is just about 16, despite about 70% of the above numbers being in the "normal range" of 10-14. This is because very large numbers skew averages disproportionately, and its a lot easier to be many many sizes above the norm than it is to be many sizes below the norm.

Emerald I think UK size 4 is bought by the very slim (and petite) teenagers or young 20s. Obviously there will be plenty of older size 4s out there but it'd likely be more rare than those who are younger and who have a naturally faster metabolism and/or who don't sit down to proper dinners or meals every day.

Depends where you are. When I lived in West London everyone seemed slim. NE London now: & most women & teens I see are at least a size 14 & more 16-18. Whenever I go shopping I there's only ever the odd size size 16 & 18 left & on Amazon I noticed those two sizes sell out before the others.

I'm a size 14-16 and I look positively starved

Yoba It depends on the method of maths. You have used the mean value. If using the mode then it would be a size 12. If using the median then it would still be a size 12.

Mean might be useful to prove an "average" but as we can see from your example, a 16 would not be average size of person in your sample. Out of 16 sizes listed, the size 16 appears as no. 12 on the list in size order, with only 4 sizes bigger and 11 sizes which are smaller. In this way the "average" is skewed to a 16 by the fewer but bigger numbers, so "average" means something different - it's not "most frequently occurring" or "middle number of". The most frequently occurring would be the truest representation even if it were technically correct to call it "average", it means anything but.

It doesn't illustrate in real terms that in your example a size 16 is the average size. In fact it illustrates completely the opposite.

I still wonder how marilyn monroe was a size 16. She looked tiny

As the PP said, she wasn't. It's a myth.

August 2, 1945
Blue Book Modeling Agency
5’ 6”, 120lbs
36-24-34
“Size 12”

February 8, 1954
DOD ID Card
5’ 5 1/2”, 118lbs

August 5, 1962
LA Coroner Medical Report
5’ 5 1/25”, 117lbs

...and here she is, just as a reminder of how not a size 16 she was...

Someone asked why I was ignoring all the studies which conclude that the average is 16.

That's kind of the point. I've heard time and time again over the years that 'The average UK lady is a size 16...rest of the article'.

But I've no idea what that is based on. I'm mid-30s and never been surveyed on my clothes size. It's not as if it's collected on the census.

So where does that data-set come from? Do all stores contribute their sales data by size for this analysis? If that's done on a voluntary basis then the data couldn't really be considered that sound.

So yes, I'm a bit distrustful of that oft quoted fact as I don't know how that conclusion is drawn, and as indicated originally to my (admittedly non expert but whose are?) eyes it doesn't seem like that.

I live in a outer London borough so very much in middle, neither in what I'd consider a deprived or affluent area.

Well there are a lot of plus size women too, size 20 and above as well as thinner women. It makes sense that it would average out at size 16.
Also a lot (Not all) of older women tend to gain a bit of weight as they get older. So the stats include them as well as younger women. I don’t think it’s that unbelievable.

I honestly don’t know how you can possibly think your estimations of ‘average size’ can be more accurate based on your observations of where you work and live.

The data probably comes from clothing sold. I don’t know why you’re wasting headspace on this though. Medically it’s pretty obvious (and backed by more verifiable data) that as a nation we’re getting fatter.

I don’t see how you could reliably base an average size on clothing sold through.

That would only give a true reflection of the average woman’s size if all women bought the same amount of clothes each.

That’s something that’s going to vary, some women buy new clothes more than others, whether that’s down to having more disposable income, having a greater interest in fashion, or whatever.

And pp have mentioned a correlation between size and wealth - rich people tend to be thinner than poor people - so if that’s the case, that’s likely to skew the clothes buying statistics towards a disproportionate amount of smaller sized clothes being bought compared to the actual body size of the population.