[MeowMix]

Sizes drive me nuts!! I had my heart set of being a size 4 when I started this. Size 4 was what my mom always was and she was tiny. I got to size 4 while I was still in my high 130's and I was so disappointed! I know, shut up but since sizes have changed so much since I was kid and my mom was a size 4 (meaning it was smaller then) that being able to fit into but still looking pretty chunky was a let down. I'm happy to report I no longer have any size up on a pedestal but they still matter to me.

I would just really like to have ONE size or rather I just wish the US would make clothing company's conform to one size set. It's really frustrating to fit into a size 4 here, a size 7 there, a size 5 in this brand, a size 2 in that brand, etc! Then when I look up size charts most tell me (according to my measurements) I'm a size 0-2!! But I can't walk into a store and actually fit into those sizes so what the heck?

Rawr! Ok, ranting there sorry. But in answer to your question, yes, I admit to feeling less 'overweight' in the single digits but then again I'm fairly short so that matters too, I don't look anywhere as good in a pair of size 10-11's as someone 4+ inches taller than me.

[shortandfluffy]

This frustration that I have with this is my height. I wear the same size as someone that weighs 20 lbs. more than me BUT is several inches taller.. so I can't really use that as something to judge from.

I will be happy when I get back into the clothes I already have that are too small.. some 10s and a few 8s. They are from a few years back so I am sure 8s now will be different. BUT i was happy with how I looked in them so that is my goal at the moment.

I am at the moment between a 14 and 12. 12s are still too tight but my 14s are loose. Frustrating, but I am glad to be going down and not up.

Also with height that sucks is that when I get to 162 I will finally be out of the obese catergory, but I won't be considered "normal" until I am in the 130s. I guess I will just see how it is when I get there!

[Renwomin]

A lot of you have made some awesome points! These thread has made stop and think a lot.

Clothing size - As many people have said we can't base our bodies on clothing because of the inaccuracies of sizing and the varying ways clothing fits people of different proportions and heights.

BMI - BMI on an individual level is a horrible measure of health or our bodies . It does not take into account body composition or fitness. When fit, trim athletes (I'm not even talking about body builders) are being classified as overweight and obese there is a major problem with BMI as a measurement.

Weight - For the same exact reasons that BMI isn't a good measure weight is not either. (BMI is only a height/weight measurement after all.)

So what do we use to measure?

For health? Fitness level is a huge factor even more so than weight by some recent studies. When thin inactive people are studied alongside "overweight" fit people the overweight group is found to be healthier. Thin does not ensure health by any means.

Fitness can be a bit hard to determine so if I had to chose the best measurement it would be percentage of body fat. This really takes into account body composition - the ratio of muscles, organ, bones to actual fat. This isn't as easy to measure unfortunately. I'm not sure how accurate those body fat measures on scales are. Underwater measurements are often being replaced by bod pods which are an easy weight to measure body fat.

But just body fat percentage does not take into account fat distribution. Study after study shows that the fat we carry in our middle or internally is more dangerous to our health. Some who predominately gains weight in their middle has a much greater health risk than those whose fat is distributed well throughout their body.

I dream of the day when I step in a doctor's office for a physical and they measure my percentage of body fat, take measurements to determine my fat distribution, really quiz me on my diet, and measure my fitness level. I'm really surprised how far behind in medical practices most doctors are considering the growing body of scientific evidence.

"Looks" are a whole more complicated matter with warped individual and societal ideas of attractiveness. Far too often instead of changing or WEIGHT we need to change the WAY we perceive our own bodies.

[lilithb]

It really is how we perceive weight. Too me, 154 and 160 is perfect.. When you look at how a women with a little more meat on her was considered beautiful.. Those pictures of chubby naked women lounging is what I have in my mind. I am proportioned well. I just have all this barrow around the middle. Its suffocating. I have about 50 pounds to lose to be where I would be comfortable and that would around 1 40 something.

[lavenderannn]

Even at my lowest weight, I wore many sizes. I don;t go by sizes at all, in fact I always cut tags off of clothing, they irritate me.

I first feel near normal around 220, meaning I don't feel obese anymore. I feel normal under 180, thin at 160 and start looking gaunt around 140. I have a large bone structure, so I will never be petite and delicate looking. My mother is very petite, so even when my hip bones stick out and my cheeks are hollow, I look like a viking woman next to her. lol.

This time around, I am not concerned with the final size or weight as I am about feeling well and active. I'll never have the youthful body I once had, so in many ways I have no idea what the final outcome will be. I may never look thin again if my skin remains sagging. Sigh.