The FastDay Forum

Hi All

On Sunday I measured my waist and was pretty shocked it was 42". I'm also about 2st overweight and apple shaped. But then I pulled on a pair of size 12 skinny jeans and it got me thinking.

In the 80's when I was a teenager I always bought size 14 jeans even although I was no where near as overweight as I am now. I could never get into the magical size 12s. So the only thing I can think of is that jeans now have so much lycra in them that it masks the real size/weight issue. I haven't worked out what size I would be wearing if lycra didn't exist but it must be 16-18? So although I have lost a couple of stone over the last 2 years I'm really not doing as well as I think when I buy clothes.

Was also wondering if this could be a factor in the increasing weight problems of young girls who maybe rely on clothes size rather than the scales to judge their weight? As long as you can squeeze into a 12 because of the lycra it's ok but in reality your body measurements mean your overweight. Any thoughts

Disclaimer: I do not blame my weight on lycra, but entirely on the good times
Alf

P.S. The skinny jeans really don't look as bad on me as they sound. Or at least I really, really hope not.

[janeg]

Love it, Alf and am gaily singing the revised words (and having a wee boogie too)

It's not the lycra, it's the marketing.
In the past decade or so, many shops have changed their sizes in order to sell more clothes. That way, 14 became 12, 12 became 10, 10 became 8 and now many shops in the UK carry a size 6 and many shops in the US carry a size 00.
For some reason, women prefer to wear a size 8 or 10, even if their scales show that they are a 12 or 14 and the shops took the message and changed their sizing aiming to better sales.

IMO, lycra should be for cyclists and sports people (does anyone else check out passing lycra-wearing cyclists, to see if they're going commando) It beats playing 'I spy'

Oh, and I'm in complete agreement at restrictions on Lycra. Although I'd probably add underwear to your list.

I noticed this in one of my daughter's mags, TML, where it was comparing High Street sizing by checking their "typical size 12".

Now, to me, Size 12 is 34-24-36 but no - they said it was 36-26-38, which is Size 14 so far as I'm concerned (and which I used to be able to wear!

Well, my favourite pair of skinny jeans has no elastic in it (I doubt there's lycra in jeans) and when I fit them I know that I will look good, no matter what my scales or the label says.

I agree, lycra is for cyclists and I'm very happy that there aren't any around me because I hate those bicycle shorts!!!

It's very frustrating because I always bought jeans without trying them on (I knew my size and style in certain shops) and now I have to try them on and make sure that they fit...

I've also noticed that its where the waistband of the jeans goes that matters too. My neighbour is on a diet too (WW) and she keeps telling me that she had lost loads and can now fit into size 14 jeans. In reality she is the same size as me - 18, but she is an apple and I'm a pear. She buys very low waisted jeans that fit under her apple, in fact they are so low that sometimes her undies are on show! Thus she is not getting a true picture of her waistline measurements, and ends up with a 'muffin top'.

Izzy, try New Look or Top Shop for non-stretchy jeans. I even have a pair from Primark! Lycra is a fabric while elastane is IN the fabric. Or so I'm told...

Honeybee, I hate it when women do that, it's very bad for the eyes of the rest of the people! The reason why there are jeans with high, low, standard waist is to help us look good, not BAD!!!

When you think about it basketcase, the clothes makers aren't doing much to help people, if they are calling a size 14 a size 12. It might make us feel better, but in reality, we're still a size 14, aren't we?

My thoughts precisely, izzy!

Maybe we should do away with labels completely, and just give our measurements to the store, and let them find us something that fits. That would have everybody 5:2-ing in a flash!!

- or, at the moment, maybe that should be

Sizes have gone mad, when I was young, size 8 hadn't been invented, 10 was the smallest you could get and I was a stock size 10/12. Now I am buying size 8 (?) trousers when the reality is that I'm back to my 'old' size 10/12, grrr!

A dream come true is waking up and finding that your dress size is now the same as your shoe size, a nightmare come true is the other way round!

Ballerina x

Izzy, do you really study cyclists rear ends rather than play I-spy?

Naughty girl!!!

Ballerina x

Ha ha you girls are soooooooo funny!!!

Part of the problem with stretchy jeans is the fabric is so darned thin!

Back when Hector was a pup (and so was I i.e. the 60's), I actually wore (briefly) what was then a size 6. I was 5'4" with a 23" waist and weighed 113-115 pounds, When I went swimming and tried to float, I sank like a stone!

Now I am wearing a "size 8" weighing 149 with a 30" waist. Hmmm...

I remember when I read a magazine article that said that Angela Lansbury wore an "expensive size 12." I guess I'm wearing an "expensive size 8."