Is a size 14 viewed as overweight?

[Ilovemycatalot]

Just reading online that uk size 16 is the average size of a uk woman right now. Im a size 14 and 5ft 3 so always felt overweight anyway but in reality would you view someone as a size 14 overweight? For me anyone who can fit into a size 10 would be considered slim although I know clothes sizes come up different depending on shop. Just curious what dress size people on here buy and if they consider themselves overweight.

I think people refer back to the argument that we have got taller so we have got heavier and reference the height and weight of people 2 centuries ago.

I agree we have got taller and heavier but it is the amount of weight we have put on in the last 42 years compared to the new average height that I think we need to wake up to.

The average height of a U.K. woman has only gone up 1” since 1980

However the average weight in 1980 was 10st and to day stands at 11stone 2lbs

16lbs heavier for being 1” taller

I think that is why a size 14 is the equivalent to a size 10 in the 80s

Wrong way round

I think that is why a size 10 now is the equivalent to a size 14 in the 80s

We have definitely got fatter, no question. So sizing has normalised to the mean, just like chairs and cars and doorways. It's not because clothes manufacturers are trying to flatter us. It's just practical. If sizing didn't adapt as we get bigger, clothes wouldn't fit and companies would go out of business.

It's size inflation, not vanity sizing.

I have noticed how people are bigger these days recently. I used to know a girl many years ago who was cast in a tv programme in the late 90s. I remember her as being a big girl - not morbidly obese, but she was big. I watched this programme again recently for the first time since it first aired and was shocked at how slim she was. She looks about an average size for these days - maybe a 12 or perhaps a 14 at a push. She doesn’t look big to me at all. But I very clearly remember that she was when she filmed the programme. All I can think is that people have got larger in general so she doesn’t stand out now. Clothing sizes are also bigger these days (I know this from experience as I remember wearing a size 12 in the 90s but my size 10-12 self can’t even get my old clothes from them over my thighs now and haven’t been able to for 20 years).

People like to say we've lost sight of a healthy weight these days, but the 90s were all about being absolutely pin thin...heroin chic, waif look. You were literally supposed to look like you were on drugs. It may have given us a warped view then of what fatness was.

We've got fatter, of course. No question. But the 90s were a fucking awful time for healthy weights too.

I agree. Just check out Monica from Friends in the early episodes (1994/1995.) She must have had a 22 inch waist and weighed about 7 stone. She was not slim, she was thin, very thin. Too thin. Loads of women in the late 1980s and in the 1990s were very VERY thin with teeny tiny waists. Like a 10 year old girl's waist. When you look back now, some of them looked ill and gaunt. Women pre 1980s were slim and had smallish waists, but they looked normal, and looked good. As you said, the late 1980s and the 1990s was a breeding ground for being as super skinny as possible.

Girls/young women these days have much healthier bodies, not so uber skinny, and with more muscle mass. My DD is 5 ft 8 and is 10 stone 9. Not an ounce of fat on her. She is toned and trim, but not skinny. She has a decent sized booty, average sized thighs, and slightly bigger than average boobs, and a 28 inch waist. She looks amazing, and looks good in everything she wears.

5ft 5in, one stone overweight, BMI around 27 which is overweight and wear size 14 in almost everything.

That makez your BMI 25 so you are borderline normal/overweight.

Yes it is, I'm a 14/16 and 5'8 I'm suffering with the health effects from being overweight.

I'm 5ft5 and a healthy BMI (just over 21), I'm a size 10/12. Think I could easily be a size 14 and still a healthy BMI

A size 14 is me at a BMI of 21. So definitely not overweight. But I have enormous hips which spread further in pregnancy and didn't shrink back.

Then why say a size 10 is now bigger. Why not call it a size 14

Why say the average size for a U.K. woman is size 16 instead of calling it what it is a size 20

size 10, 12 or 14 were based on set measurements, not on average sizing . If the measurements have increased then why haven’t the sizing if it isn’t to do with vanity

A 22”/24” waist is what we are supposed to have.
It isn’t unhealthy or particularly thin.

dd is a 32” bust, 22” waist 34” hips and is around 7st 13lbs -8st 2lbs and is much taller.
She has very defined muscles because of her job and training.

I think what we see as normal now is more because a lot of people are so much bigger not because it is actually healthy.

I think a 24" waist was fairly standard size 12 when I was young, mine was about 24"-25" iirc but I am quite tall, 22"-26" was size 10 -14, now mine is about 31" but I am mid 60s and I think even years ago older people had bigger waistlines, my very skinny DM even had a bigger waist in her older years.

My shape has changed over the years and I am much straighter now and don't go in round the middle, I wouldn't say I was fat round the middle it's like my insides have relaxed out, this often happens after menopause and dieting can just mean that weight goes off other areas instead.

I think the change in sizes is probably more likely a change in shops used rather than anything else, I mainly shop in Seasalt, Fatface and M&S and these shops cater for the much older woman so their sizes will be appropriate to that, if these shops did trousers that had a 24" waist for size 12 very few of their post menopause customers would fit into them. I guess the shops aimed at young people still have the original sort of sizing and slim waisted young women wouldn't be shopping where I do at age 64

This is why it seems sizes seem to have got bigger, they probably always were in older peoples shops but we wouldn't have known when we were younger.

Then why say a size 10 is now bigger. Why not call it a size 14

Two reasons:

1. It wouldn't stop! Customers would get confused and the numbers would just go up and up. Are you saying sizing numbers should just have gone up and up since the 1500s and never stop with no resizing to inflation?

2. Sizing is based on various systems of scaling. The numbers aren't arbitrary. They're for pattern cutters to work out how to scale up and down from the middle size of the size run.

size 10, 12 or 14 were based on set measurements, not on average sizing .

Which were average at the time! How can a manufacturer sell in its market without adapting to it?

It suits people for some reason to think manufacturers are trying to manipulate people and make us all feel thinner than we are but it
simply isn't true. Beds, chairs and doorways have also got bigger and nobody calls that "vanity". They're not trying to flatter fat women, although I don't know why people think that would be so terrible. They're adapting to the market and sizing to the mean, as they need to do to sell. That's all.

Were there mass manufacturing of clothes in the 1500s

Sizing had
remained pretty much consistent until the last 20 years

Just because someone is average in size compared to others doesn’t mean to say they aren’t overweight or obese. Will we if this trend continues be having a population of morbidly obese women saying they are a size 8 and wondering why when they are just average size their life expectancy is shorter than those painfully thin starving waifs who are clearly unwell as they are a size 0000000000

Why not give people the reality of their size.

As far as I can see all that would happen is the label on a dress that is a size 12 will say size 16. A size 14 will say 18.

It won’t alter the pattern it will just be a bigger size on the label.

You say the numbers would just go up and up. But atm the numbers are going down and down. 40 years ago there was no size 2 , 4 or 6 and M&S only bring a get in size 8 because their size 10s were generous.

The only confusing thing is that a size 10 is not standard across manufacturers today or clothing from a few years ago.
If you say you are a size 10 that could mean you could have anything between a 22” waist to 30” waist

That is where the confusion lies.

It is when you can only shop in the childrens section as an adult woman that the you know something has gone terribly wrong with the sizing

Dress sizes are ridiculous. At BMI 24 (healthy weight) I couldn't even squeeze into a 16 H&M jeans let alone get the zip up. At Primark and Tesco I had room to spare in a 10.

That's why BMI is so helpful because it's an objective measure of what amount of weight your body should be carrying. It isn't supposed to be indicative of your overall health, it tells you whether your weight puts you at an increased risk of certain illnesses.

I know from experience a 14 isn't overweight because I wasn't overweight while in a 14, but for my personal comfort I felt far too big. Went from BMI 24.9 (eek!) to 19.7. What matter is whether you're happy with your body.

People were certainly different sizes in the 1500s. If sizing doesn't need to adapt to the market, why shouldn't we be using 500 year old patterns?

Just because someone is average in size compared to others doesn’t mean to say they aren’t overweight or obese.

This is both completely beside the point and also, in a way, bang on.

Average certainly does not mean healthy weight, that's true. But that's not the point. Markets adapt for reality, not what we would like reality to be. So if the average customer is overweight, the sizing will reflect the size they are, not the size they ideally should be. Manufacturers would go out of business if they didn't cater for the size people ARE.

But you go on to say this which, while irrelevant to why sizing normalises to the mean, pretty much nails why people don't like it:

Will we if this trend continues be having a population of morbidly obese women saying they are a size 8 and wondering why when they are just average size their life expectancy is shorter than those painfully thin starving waifs who are clearly unwell as they are a size 0000000000

And this, I think, is what the public often doesn't like...the idea that overweight women might not think they are overweight or realise how fat they are. Why that is, I'd rather not go into here. It'll lead to a tangent and a bunfight.

But I'll just say that it's not the job of a manufacturer to police people's weights. Their job is to create clothes that sell to their target market. The customers get bigger, the clothing must do the same or it simply won't sell and the company folds.

The sizing numbers are not arbitrary. They relate to methods for scaling up and down...frequently arcane now, but they don't come out of nowhere. I don't see why it's so important for numbers to keep going up and up and up. It confuses customers and it reaches a point where it's just a bit silly. They've gone up a lot in recent years anyway as the plus size market has exploded. Size 30 was almost impossible to find 15 years ago but now it's stocked much more widely.

Sizing differs from place to place because stores profile their customers; ASOS is aimed at a younger market than Bon Marche, and younger women tend to be slimmer. It's also gone into the toilet for many reasons, but this is at least in part to consumer expectation that they should be able to pick up a mass produced size X from anywhere, off the peg and have it fit. Even when they know they have unusual proportions! ("I've got H cup boobs and a 26 inch waist, why does nothing fit me?")

If not producing plus sizes kept women at a healthy weight, we wouldn't have been getting fatter since those sizes were rarely available.

As a small additional point...as BMI increased across the board, so did plus size ranges and stores. Amazing the selection there is nowadays.

If we did reach a point where normal weight and underweight people are as badly served as overweight people used to be, my guess is that there would be an increase in specialist clothing for slim and thin people. How well it would do depends on how many people are in that market and what they're willing to spend. Rich people tend to be thinner, so high end stuff would probably be OK, and could even capitalise the the exclusivity. I highly doubt we'll see that market eclipse the plus size one any time soon.

But if you truly can't find anything, anywhere? That's mass produced clothing for you. Befriend a local seamstress. They're worth their weight in gold.

I don't see why it's so important for numbers to keep going up and up and up. It confuses customers and it reaches a point where it's just a bit silly

The only thing confusing is that sizing means nothing now.
If someone asked you your size would they be able to go into any store and buy that size and it would fit or would it depend on the store or even the style in the same store.

If we did reach a point where normal weight and underweight people are as badly served as overweight people used to be, my guess is that there would be an increase in specialist clothing for slim and thin people

Its now called the children section.

The biggest issue I see and no one can explain it is this

In the children’s section of stores the clothing is based on height and age so 14+ in age would have longer tops, trousers, dresses etc than the 12-14 age group etc

Dd aged in her 20s with long legs buys her clothes in the children’s section (a lot of her friends do as well because the adult section just doesn’t fit them any more.certain designers do the same clothing in the adult and children’s section. The children’s section is at least 20% cheaper (no vat) -50% cheaper just because it is in the children’s section.)

What we find strange in stores is that the trouser length in the children’s section are made with the leg length longer than the adult section.
When you see a pair of trousers in the adults section and you think it has a longer leg when you get it off the rail and take a closer look at it, the actual leg length is still the same as every other size (maybe 1” more if you are lucky) but the length from waist band to crotch is where the extra length is.

Saying you have a crotch to heel measurement of 36” will get you a pair of trousers with a leg length of 30” and a waist to crotch measurement 6” longer. Ever tried walking with trousers where the crotch is somewhere near your knees. Or if you pull them up your calf’s are exposed and the waistband is just under your arm pits.

Yet age 12-14 or 14+ has the correct longer length leg
I can only assume that clothing manufacturers assume that as soon as children with long legs hit the adult clothing market their legs get shorter because their bums have dropped 6” because that is the only explanation.

My daughter has worked as a model for sizing for a couple of clothing companies. They advertised they want the 32” 22” 34”woman. When she has got there and tried on a lot of clothes she could tell that they wanted a bigger girl. What manufacturers say they want and what they picture in their own eyes is 2 different things.

I was a size 8/10 when I was her age and not considered particularly slim. I still have clothes from the 70s and 80s that Dd cannot fit into.

Remember our average height as a nation has only gone up 1” since 1980
Our average weight shouldn’t have gone up that much but it has exploded.

Size 14 is definitely overweight

If someone asked you your size would they be able to go into any store and buy that size and it would fit or would it depend on the store or even the style in the same store.

It would depend on the store and the style because shops and designers profile their customers, as I keep saying. Yes, it's annoying, but it's how they stay relevant for their target markets.

The rest of your post is all about fitting difficulties and sizing inflation and honestly I can't be bothered to go into that yet again. I've explained it twice. Sizing normalises to the mean. Everything does. It doesn't mean we haven't got fatter, it just means that designers haven't done it to flatter fat women into thinking they're Cameron Diaz. They're just trying to adapt to the market so they can make a living.

Children are sized differently to adults because they have a different shape and even when they're tall, they tend to be slimmer. Sizing numbers aren't arbitrary. You are unlikely to find a perfect fit everywhere when you buy mass produced and off the peg. Sorry.

Not that many years ago you could say to someone get me a dress I am a size 12 and they would come back with a dress that fitted because 99.99% of stores did work to a set size. It meant you could go into any shop and think I like that dress, I am a size 10/12/14 and you could buy it without trying it on and when you got it home it would fit.
It was definitely easier to buy clothes in the 80s and 90s. For me I have given up buying clothes because I have no idea what my size is in Primark or in Next, or in River island etc and even if I liked something the the thought of trying on multiple sizes just to get one to fit is boring. So I might look at a dress but then put it back on the rail and move on. If I knew I am a size 14 because my bust waist and hips are a certain size and there was a size 14 dress I liked I would probably have bought so many more clothes.
Maybe that is why so many clothing stores are struggling or bankrupt. People now just don’t have the time to try multiple of the same item on and so just put the item back on the shelf and walk away. I know I am not the only one who just can’t be arsed trying to find something to fit when the size label bears no relation to the actual size of the clothes.

If sizing does now normalise to the mean then why is there such a big difference between stores. For example a Size 10 can mean you have a 22” waist or a 30” waist that is a huge difference to be called the mean.

If designers aren’t vanity sizing then why not have size 10 being the 32” bust 22” waist and 34” hips
size 14 is for people with 36” bust 26” waist and 38” hips and if you have a 44” bust and 34” waist and hips 46” then you need to look for a size 22 not a 16/18 and kidding yourself you are average.

I do think a lot of women do look at the clothes label and think they are slimmer than they are. I would say most people don’t have a proper full length mirror or a proper tape measure in their house and don’t really look at themselves full length from all angles. I know I was the size 16/18 person. It was only when I caught myself in a full length mirror in a hotel room and took a tape measure out did I realise just how bad a state I had got into.

When I was talking about children’s clothing I was asking why you don’t get longer length legs on trousers in the adult section when you do in the children’s
Children might change shape but their legs don’t shrink.
If they have a 34” inside leg at 15 it doesn’t shrink to 31” when they reach adulthood.

I tend to shop in the mens section as I know my leg length and waist measurement and the sizing is exactly what it says. It hasn’t changed over the years to the average size. There are just now more 40”+ waist measurements on offer than there were years ago. It isn’t confusing.