I have a pair of jeans, UK size 22, quite a figure hugging cut, that I had to stop wearing because they'd got a bit too tight. I replaced them with a baggier pair, same size. After losing a few pounds, I could get into them again (yay!) and realised they looked a lot better than the baggier jeans. And then I lost a bit more, and they started getting baggy too.
I thought, brilliant! I can go down a trouser size! And I bought an identical pair of figure hugging jeans, from the same company, just one size smaller. Couldn't fasten them up, even though the larger size were hanging off me so much I had to walk around with my hands in my pockets holding them up.
Today, I went out in the new jeans, because they finally fit, and fasten, and with a day's wear they've loosened, and they're a perfect fit (and my bum looks awesome in them). But I'm two and a half stone lighter now than when I was when the one-size-larger jeans fit just as perfectly. Is that how it's supposed to work? Two and a half stone - that's thirty five pounds for those of you who do weights that way - just for one trouser size?
Obviously there could be a mislabelling issue - either the 22s were actually a 24 (though I had other 22s which fitted the same, so I think not) or the 20s are actually a mislabelled 18. Does anyone know offhand roughly what the difference in dimensions between two sizes ought to be, so I can check?
Tell me your tales of clothes sizes and scales combined giving you a headache? Because right now I feel like I'm doomed - if it's thirty five pounds for one trouser size, then by the time I hit target weight I'll be in a 16, and that's... really not that small.
From experience between a size 14 and a size 12 can be between 1/2 to 1 stone loss in weight. Probably about the same from 12 to 10. The smaller a person is, the bigger a difference the same amount of weight will make to their size... So as you lose weight the jump between sizes should get smaller
That makes perfect sense. Why on earth didn't I think of that? Also explains why I didn't much notice gaining three stone - it only involved going up one trouser size because I was pretty big to start with.
I find that even the same manufacturer can fit very differently from cut to cut. And yes, it's true, the closer to goal weight you are, the less pounds it takes between sizes.
Ironically, I just blogged about this today - when I started I was a 20 and always a 20 (US sizes). Now I'm all over the place in sizes depending on the designer and the cut of the outfit.
It took me 30-40 lbs to drop a size in the beginning. Now it's between 5 and 10 before things are falling off me. I heard someone describe it like taking sheets off a paper towel roll. In the beginning, it doesn't make so much difference, but as you get close to the center each sheet makes a much bigger difference in the size of the roll.
Yeah, I started in a size 28 (U.S. sizes), lost 40 pounds, and was still in a 28. I'm now in a 22, which means I've only dropped 3 sizes with the 100 pounds I've lost! Can't wait until it takes less pounds to get down to the next size.
Last edited by Elladorine; 05-21-2012 at 05:20 PM.
I still don't think I've dropped a full size in trousers. I started as a UK14 and my trousers were getting tight. I can wear a 12L and some skirts that are a 12 but I bought a pair of shorts from Primark in a size 12 and I can get them on but they're still really tight. My legs are my problem area so it makes sense but it's frustrating!
im down almost 40 pounds and i still havent lost a single dress size yet. my clothes are baggier, but i cant fit into a 22 quite yet! i CANNOT wait to buy smaller clothes
I find that even the same manufacturer can fit very differently from cut to cut. And yes, it's true, the closer to goal weight you are, the less pounds it takes between sizes.
Ironically, I just blogged about this today - when I started I was a 20 and always a 20 (US sizes). Now I'm all over the place in sizes depending on the designer and the cut of the outfit.
Me too. This is very common, as is taking many pounds (or stones ) to lose sizes when starting at higher weights. It accelerates quite quickly in smaller sizes, though, which is a nice bonus.
Last edited by Arctic Mama; 05-21-2012 at 09:11 PM.
Reason: Fixed typo
Yup, it took me about 30-35lbs (226 to 196lbs) to get to size 18 from 20. Now at 185 lbs, I am fitting in a size 17 comfortably, I can fasten a 16 but gives me a muffin top. After I get to goal, I want to try doing body recomposition (something like new rules of lifting for women) to get to a lower BF%, which I believe in turn, that will make you look smaller than you actually weigh because of the muscles, less volume that way.
Just keep going, it won't take much to make a difference as you get smaller like others mentioned above.
Now I'm all over the place in sizes depending on the designer and the cut of the outfit.
Tell me about it. My pants range from size 2 to size 8 and my tops/dresses range from size small to extra-large. And I'm talking about the clothes that fit me perfectly now.
Size versus scales?
I'm now in a 22, which means I've only dropped 3 sizes with the 100 pounds I've lost! Can't wait until it takes less pounds to get down to the next size.
) to lose sizes when starting at higher weights. It accelerates quite quickly in smaller sizes, though, which is a nice bonus.
