Weight Loss Support - How can this be???
Fat in Hong Kong
11-05-2006, 02:06 AM
I was reading an article today in a magazine about a woman who had lost a lot of weight ... I was interested in it because she started off the same size as me and was the same height ... but what I couldn't get my head around was the fact that she weighed far more than I do when she started ... How can this be???
She was 5'4" tall, size UK18, and weighed 16st 4lbs ... I am 5'4" tall, size UK18-20, and I weigh 13st 5lbs ... How on earth can two people of the same height, with a difference in weight of 3 stones (42lbs!), be the same dress size?:?: I could understand it if the difference was say 10-20lbs, but 42lbs?!! The only thing that I can think of is perhaps she had very fat hands or huge feet ... or something!:shrug:
Maybe I'm really only a size UK14!:^:
11-05-2006, 03:07 AM
clothes size are wierd. At 154 I am a size UK14.
11-05-2006, 03:31 AM
I think it's the way the extra weight is proportioned. Like for me, I'm 163, am 5'2" and wear a UK 12. I have slender hips, bum and legs, though. I carry all my weight in my boobs and belly. My size 12s are getting very loose on me but I'm not quite ready for a 10 yet.
11-05-2006, 03:42 AM
Oh I'm experiencing deja vu! Except, the woman weighed less (before losing), despite being the same height and size as me.
She may have weighed more in lean body mass (i.e. bones, muscle, blood, organs). Or you could be right, you may actually be a UK 14.
I had an old pair of jeans that said "size 22" and they appeared to be the same size as 3 of my size 16 jeans. Either clothes sizes are just going haywire or our weight is bouncing up and down all the time (not likely!) :rofl:
11-05-2006, 04:45 AM
well clothes sizes are fairly inconsistent, but it is definitely possible.... As I posted on another thread here, I am currently in a north american 16/18 (approximately). Look how much I weigh. I lost weight once before and at 190 lbs I was a north american 12/14. There is a big difference in the actual size of someone depending on whether they are leaner or softer. I tend to be very lean because I have always been quite active. If you aren't a gym goer or aren't active in other ways, then you may be on the softer side, and therefore slightly larger. It also depends on how your weight is distributed, what body type you are.
Fat in Hong Kong
11-05-2006, 06:35 AM
Passionfruit ... I'm under absolutely no illusions ... I know I'm definitely NOT a UK14 (Oh, how I wish I was!!) ... But I still find it hard to believe how someone who's 42lbs heavier than me can be the same dress size, when they are the same height:?: I realise that different body shapes have something to do with this ... whether your a pear or apple shape, or whatever ... but 42lbs is a LOT of difference ... it just doesn't seem fair ... why couldn't I be the one with heavy bones, blood, muscles, organs? ... Instead I got the fat belly, big bum and flabby thighs!:mad:
11-05-2006, 12:42 PM
My mom and I weigh the same, only I'm a size 16 and she's a size 22/24. It's all about how you carry your weight, muscles, bones, etc. I have a large frame, vs my mom who is small. Lately I am learning not to compare myself to anyone else, because it just ends up being frustrating for me.
11-05-2006, 12:48 PM
Muscle can make a huge difference. Since muscle weighs more than fat, someone who has more muscle can weigh a lot more than someone with less muscle and the same size. Bones can make a slight difference as well. Some people have a smaller bone structure than others. I know I'm on the medium/large side for my bone structure. I used to have a friend that had a very small bone structure, she weighed less than me, but she wore a bigger size than me in both her top and her bottom. The reasonings as I figured them were that she had a smaller bone structure and she had less muscle than me.
11-05-2006, 01:22 PM
I'm in with the body composition theory.
At 121 lbs I bought a pair of black dress slacks, a girls size 16, which I wore with control top pantyhose. Now, I wear them without and they look just fine. At least 10 lbs heavier.
11-05-2006, 08:17 PM
Doesn't it also depend on the type of clothing one wears and how tight they wear them? I'm almost 5'9". At 180, I weighed the same as a coworker who was 5'5". Although she's much more pear shaped than I and so much shorter, we wore the same size. But she wore her clothes a lot tighter than I did and she wore quite sturdy and restritive undergarments, which I don't do. Additionally, if you carry your weight on your bottom half and wear empire waist dresses, you can pack a lot more in there. :D
11-05-2006, 09:14 PM
There is a big difference in the actual size of someone depending on whether they are leaner or softer.
Isthatreally me is so right! Comparing the two of us just further proves this point. I am 5'3" and when I weighed 150 lbs I wore a north american size 14 and it was starting to feel tight. Yet I weighed 40lbs less than Isthatreally me weighed when wearing a size 12/14 (we are almost the same height and even at 40lbs less there was no way I could get into a size 12 in any brand at that weight). But I had been very inactive for well over a decade so I probably had a lot more fat and a lot less muscle than Isthatreallyme, who was active. 10 years of gaining fat and losing muscle really doesn't do much for your clothing size!
Muscle weighs more but takes up less room than fat, so people who are muscular are going to wear a smaller size (apparently sometimes a much smaller size) than people who weigh the same but with less muscle. It's not the bones, blood and organs you need to worry about; it's the amount of fat you are carrying around versus the amount of muscle you have.
11-05-2006, 11:57 PM
My cousin weighed more than I did, and looked larger. She carried hers all in the stomach and mine was all over. I was more wide than anything. So we were surprised to find we wore the same size pants. Looking at us, you'd have never guessed it.
Fat in Hong Kong
11-06-2006, 01:16 AM
Right, I get it now ... It's the fat versus muscle ... but this woman certainly wasn't fit and muscular by any stretch of the imagination ... she looked very fat and flabby, just like me ... I guess her muscle must've been hiding beneath the flab. It's about time I tried to find mine!:o
11-06-2006, 08:40 AM
Passionfruit ... I'm under absolutely no illusions ... I know I'm definitely NOT a UK14 (Oh, how I wish I was!!)
Forgive me, I misinterpreted that :rofl:
11-06-2006, 08:45 AM
Nichola ... those muscles are under there. I guarantee ya! it's awesome to find them! Go for it!
11-06-2006, 11:40 AM
Just to clarify... muscle does NOT weigh more than fat. Rather muscle has less volume per pound than fat... i.e. five pounds of fat weighs the same as five pounds of muscle but the fat takes up a whole lot more space. Take a look:
Regardless, I wouldn't worry about comparing yourself to anyone else. I carry my weight well despite my short height because I have a lot of muscle and am very proportionate. However I also have large breasts and curvy hips & butt, and relatively small waist (hourglass) so I end up wearing large sizes to fit the curvy areas. For awhile my sister and I wore the same size clothes but she was probably 25 to 30 pounds heavier than me and I looked much smaller than her... just shaped much differently. Where she carried fat on her back... I had it in my boobs. Where she had wider hips, I had a curvier butt, etc.
11-06-2006, 02:32 PM
Perhaps she worked out and had muscle weight.
Fat in Hong Kong
11-07-2006, 01:11 AM
Wow, Susan, I have got to take my hat off to you ... 205lbs lost!! ... That is absolutely fantastic!:bravo: I had to look twice at your weight loss stats because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. You must be so proud of your achievement ... I am so impressed. It makes me feel that it really is possible to lose the 55lbs that I need to lose. I've wasted so much time over the past few years ... I'm not wasting any more.