My shape is straight.

According to this:
http://bodyshapestyle.com/2008/04/26...dy-shape-am-i/

I am an hourglass. I don't have very big boobs though (34B on a good day), and I don't think I look like an hourglass anymore. I used to, but then I lost my boobs :( I don't know what kind of bodyshape I have, even when I look at photos. I always used to think pear, but maybe not.

I also gain like an apple (most of my weight goes right to my stomach!) but as I'm losing, my body is changing shape. I'm more pear, or going by the link April posted, a bell.

this was a link on what claire0412 posted, but it relates back to the thing I posted which is from Trinny and Susannah on the UK version of What Not to Wear.

It's quick quiz to see which one of their shapes you fall into, no measurements needed!

http://bodyshapestyle.com/wp-content...Shape-Quiz.jpg

I came out to be a goblet, same as what I had indentified when I looked at the ones in the article I linked to yesterday.

Im like a slight hourglass lol. Small breast, small hips but ppl think they arent. I am kind of a straight hourglass lol. Depends on what Im wearing or my weight.

Hmm, maybe I'm cello? Or just a fat hourglass? Any of the bottom-heavier descriptions just don't fit me at all. Even less so the top heavier ones. Or maybe I'm a 13th, unnamed body type. That would explain why clothes just don't fit me.

I'm not really even sure what shape I am. I've been calling myself an apple, but it might be because I focus on my belly flab the most.

I do carry some in my butt and thighs, but I don't have one of those nice booties that are considered hot, lol. Even though I'm a C-D cup, and my boobs are a more than a handful, I really don't think they look all that big and look small with my height and weight. My upper arms have some flab, but aren't too bad.

I guess I might be more of a ruler or banana, just a chubby one.

I'm an apple . I have a short torso and longer than average legs for my height. I also have a little bit of a booty and plenty of boobs. So, the boobs help to hide my belly. You know what I'm talking about? They bring my shirt further out so as to camouflage my belly - but only when I'm standing up.

I have very small breast and relatively no hips. Some say i do. I have a little big of butt. Imma attach a pic. What am i?!!! :( I dont know. I atttached a pic of the front and my avatar is the side. Please help me out. I was thinking apple.

I guess I'm a lollipop or a weird hourglass. Atleast at my normal weight, I am. My hips and bust usually measure the same, but I have no butt and huge boobs with a small ribcage (32DD) I also have a very short torso (though that's due to scoliosis) and long legs. I am the epitome of never finding anything that fits.

When I gained weight, the first 60+ went all over, then the last 30 or so went right to my waist.

I happened to find the article that talks about only 8% being hourglass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-to-think.html

But I'm not sure that it's really accurate, or if .7 is really the current standard that people look at. The reason being that according to this article, the average waist size has gone up 2.5 inches BUT the average hip size has gone DOWN 3 inches. So fewer women have the kind of really accented hourglass that we think of from the movie stars of the 1950s, but the more prevalent type is a more lean look overall, even if the waist is less defined. I bet that if you took most modern actresses, who tend to be much slimmer than say Marilyn Monroe or Elizabeth Taylor, they aren't going to have a .7 ratio either - not because their waists aren't small, but their hips will be smaller too.

I'm pretty sure I'm an hourglass. My latest measurements are 47-40-49 and at my smallest (165lbs at age 18) I was the same, I had a very small waist and huge hips/chest.

Typical hourglass, right?

Vase

You would think, but you would be considered straight according to that one site. I'm 43-35-44 and it said I was straight and I'm curvier than you!

This goes back to the article I just posted - I think that most of these places use a .7 waist to hip ratio to determine an hourglass shape.

so while someone might have a defined waist, 47-40-49 and 43-35-44 both work out to about .8 rather than .7. But my guess is that if you took most of the "hot Hollywood actresses" many of them would be more like a .8 as well because they are usually very narrow in the hips.

Its the ratio that generally makes the difference. If your waist isn't 25% or so less than the circumference of your hips (and shoulders/bust) then you have a straighter figure, visually, than one with a more pronounced waist nip. It's still nice and proportional, it just means you want to accent your waist and can wear garments ith more flare/details on the hem and neckline than a curvier body type (where such things can add visual weight where there isn't any).

It's also possible for one's shape to change as they add or subtract weight from themselves. I turn into an apple when I gain beyond a certain amount of weight, as my torso fills out but not my limbs. However in the normal and overweight range of the BMI, or even the lowest end of obese for my height, I am an hourglass that becomes more pronounced. If you tend to gain in your waist I'd imagine that is where you'd lose it as you get lower on the scale, which will change those ratios :)

Yup, as one article correctly pointed out, lollipops are a common shape in actresses. Many tend to be less curvy on the bottom and through the waist than we might first believe. Some of the nicest figures I have seen, in terms of what *I* class as visually feminine and appealing, have been slightly heavier hourglass and pear-shaped housewives! The higher end of a normal BMI, with soft curves? Lovely! But then again, one of my friends growing up was a petite little ruler and she also had a gorgeous, feminine shape.


I think what it comes down to is that women can be beautiful at any size, ratio, height, whatever! So much of it comes down to confidence, dressing for YOUR body, and the personal taste of the beholder ;)

Is is definitely true. I was getting more apple shaped as I gained weight. I gained everywhere, but was gaining more and more at the waist. With this weight loss journey, and almost 60 pounds (I didn't do measurements for the fist few weeks), my chest has gone done 3 inches (all in the rib cage, not boobage), five inches in the hips, 5 in my thighs and 7 in my waist. And when I look at my body, my chest cant/won't go down much more as most of the fat is gone, my waist is still quite chunky/fatty as are my hips. My legs are looking pretty good size and shape wise, but lotso cellulite which will stay, unfortunately. So, my waist to hips ratio has improved and I expect it to continue to improve.

I'm a pared-down pear.

My problem with weight loss has always been that, by the time I like the shape of my thighs & butt & particularly my calves, my upper body has become downright gaunt. In particular, my nose gets beaky-looking. People then tell me I've lost too much weight. So I have to work at acknowledging that my lower half & upper half will never both at the same time live up to my ideals for them. And that's been pretty hard to accept.

I am actually a spoon according to that site shopyourshape. I have shelf hips. The one photo is almost exactly what I looked like at my thinnest which was 131lbs. I never officially measured at that weight but I guestimmated based on my clothing waist size (26) and bust (34b). No matter how much I lost, I couldn't get rid of the shelf. My mother even had the shelf when she was thin! I was weighing in at Weight Watchers at the time and the meeting leader told me to stop losing. But I really wanted to get rid of the hips shelf which never disappeared. I was looking at myself naked this morning and even heavier than 131, I look exactly like the photo with the shelf hips. I hate it.

I've never really measured myself, but I always just assumed I was an hourglass. My boobs are huge, even when I'm small, so that's not really a debate. =P I don't have much of a butt compared to my boobs, but my hip bones are very wide set. I guess I shall measure myself when I hit goal! I think it's hard to tell when you're carrying extra weight.

Fitmom and Beachbreeze

Thanks for the clothing advice. I appreciate it. :D

So I read that article and my thought on it is that you have a lot of women who are *almost* hourglasses (like myself) that identify more with an hourglass figure than that of a ruler.

For me, my waist to hip ratio is 0.79 and I have a large bust/broad shoulders/large butt with a defined waist. The corresponding description for a ruler just doesn't fit well at all (long and lean, boyish shape... um, NO!) so either they need to change the description for what a ruler is OR they need to include some sort of middle ground because clearly a lot of women are almost hourglasses (even on this thread a lot of other responders have said that hourglass fits them better BUT they just don't quite make the measurements).

In the end I had to :rolleyes: at this article some. I've seen it before where articles like to wave around that women have distorted body images and we think we're in soooo much better shape and soooo much prettier than we really are. Well, in reality the definition of an hourglass is someone with a defined waist, large bust, large hips and the hips/bust are roughly in proportion. MANY women fit that description but that just might not have quite AS a defined waist as the coveted 0.7 ratio. Certainly, someone with that 0.7 is going to have an even harder time finding clothes but I can tell you from personal experience it is pretty hard to find nice buttoned down shirts and dresses with defined waists/fitted in the chest that remotely look good on me. So I have a feeling other women like me, who are in this in between area feel the same and refer to themselves as an hourglass because it's a much more appropriate description than a ruler, which conjures up imagines of tall svelte Hollywood stars with no curves at all.

I just get so upset with articles like this. Women have enough body image issues and the last thing we need is someone else telling us once again that we are less attractive than we think we are. That NO YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PERFECT BODY SHAPE FOR ME. Gee thanks. Oh, and remember, we're also fatter than our predecessors because we work too much (ah, good let's throw in some work guilt and mom guilt for the working moms out there).

The stress thing mentioned in the article is also pretty :rolleyes: worthy. Do people really believe that the urban housewife in the 50's didn't have stress? If so why in the world was the feminine mystique written in the first place? How many times do I hear SAHM's today who are under enormous amounts of stress to keep up with the kids, clean, cook, and still fit in healthy foods/exercise. I don't believe for one second that they weren't stressed out then too. Both working women/housewives have enormous amount of stress and I don't believe for one second that's why our bellies are bigger. Now if you want to talk about the availability of fast food, all the crazy ingredients they put into food now-a-days, and the effects of sitting at a desk all day that's another story entirely, but stress, really????

Pear, I'd say.

38-31-43

But as I lose more weight, I will probably get to 36-28-42. My butt never changes! LOL

"Scientists who study waist-to-hip ratios – the waist measurement divided by the hip measurement – say a ratio of 0.7, enjoyed by women such as Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor at her peak, is most likely to be attractive to the opposite sex."

WTH?! Scientist say?! I don't care what scientist say, I might be interested in what their research shows, but this isn't talking about some study of what men find appealing. It's talking about what shape women are.

That we're fatter now than in the 50s I believe. But that where we spend our days has affect where our bodies store our fat? I need to see the hard data on that.

This article is fluff.