My goal has been to keep size 4, which means maintaining 26-inch waist. No more, and no less. As my height is 6 feet, I once concluded probably it is biologically impossible or undesirable to have a girth of less than 26 inch. In my case, it has been successful, as I kept 26 inch by regular exercise while eating enough during the past several years. People praise my body shape, and sometimes even kids do. As I am getting old, it becomes a little bit more difficult. Recently, I quitted smoking and some people say my weight will increase. Weight increase is fine to me, but increasing girth is intolerable.
An interesting thing is that some of my jeans are size 2, and some short pants of size 4 is a little bit baggy to me. Size 4 short pants: http://125.247.198.61/bbs/upimg/fishery/momzzang1.jpg (http://125.247.198.61/bbs/upimg/fishery/momzzang1.jpg)
Anyway, size 4 is mostly comfortable to wear in everyday, but some women recommend me to wear size 2 pants as they say I look sexy when wearing tight jeans.
In any case, my maintaining size 4 is good for both beauty and health. Exercise~ Exercise~
Barbie~~
You have amazing legs, great body. :)
In New Zealand a size 2 is what my 2 year old would wear :D
I agree though, you look great.
Quote from: Nicky on March 25, 2009, 06:28:41 PM
In New Zealand a size 2 is what my 2 year old would wear :D
Indeed. Several years ago, I purchased two pack of little girls' brief of size 8 (23 inch waist) from Hanes at Target. It was very inexpensive and comfortable. It is so much durable and I still wear them when I need tucking. Even size 8 is the smallest among little girls. Probably cashier there thought I bought them for my daughter ;D
http://www.hanes.com/Hanes/Categories/Kids-Hanes/Kids_Girls-Hanes/Kids_Girls_girlsunderwear-Hanes.aspx (http://www.hanes.com/Hanes/Categories/Kids-Hanes/Kids_Girls-Hanes/Kids_Girls_girlsunderwear-Hanes.aspx)
Barbie~~
When I saw the title of the thread I was going to come down on you Barbie, hard.
Until I realized that I am a size 6.
Small sizes rules. Sorry, Girls.
Janet
congratulations on your goal, i personally would like to be bigger, i'm tiny. i don't like being flat-chested or flat derrierred. i would like the average 36c and a nice j. lo booty. i already wear anything from a size 6 in juniors to a size 8 in ladies, it just depends on what kind of clothing it is and who its made by. i don't like being flat as a board, i want curves. there are some guys and gals (in my case) who like overly skinny girls, but i like girls that at least have some curvature, and i would hope the girl would either like me as i am now if hrt does nothing or even better once i have hrt and hopefully at least some curves.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
i have found going by sized clothing is not always a good indication of how big or small you really are. i am smaller than my mum but she looks thinner than me, its all how it fits you and as your taller often your clothes require bigger sizes. It does not mean your big or out of shape ofc more a reflection on clothing manufacturers.
i agree though Janet, and small women should have some sort of v.i.p membership, maybe shorter queues at the bank and such :)
Size doesn't matter. It's how you look.
That's right.
But, in modern days, people want to compare by something that looks scientific and objective. Quantification is a feature of modern society. Various indices, such as BMI and IQ, become popular. BMI for health, and IQ for intelligence. We do not know how accurate and representative those indices are, but people use and cite them.
Interesting site: http://home.fuse.net/clymer/bmi/ (http://home.fuse.net/clymer/bmi/)
Subjects WHtR
Barbie Doll 25.0%
Ken Doll 36.0%
Female College Swimmers 42.4%
My WHtR is 36.1%, closer to Ken Doll rather than Barbie Doll ::).
Probably some beauty indices will become popular soon.
Interestingly, most young women closer to me at my work place do not seem to care so much about the size of their pants. When I once asked a very slim and tall young woman, she replied that she does not know her waist size, but her jeans is 27 inch. And many people comment that I may be the slimmest person at my work place, although there are a few young petite women with 19~23 inch waist at their 20s.
Barbie~~
B.M.I. is a terrible judge of health.
When I was younger, I had body fat equal to a male runner), I was dead center of B.M.I. for my height and weight, but I looked malnourished.
There is more to being healthy than height versus weight, if you want a simple way to see how far off it can be, take a look at some pro athletes. They are in better health and shape than average and yet according to the B.M.I. they are often overweight.
Quote from: Leslie Ann on March 28, 2009, 01:55:35 PM
B.M.I. is a terrible judge of health.
When I was younger, I had body fat equal to a male runner), I was dead center of B.M.I. for my height and weight, but I looked malnourished.
There is more to being healthy than height versus weight, if you want a simple way to see how far off it can be, take a look at some pro athletes. They are in better health and shape than average and yet according to the B.M.I. they are often overweight.
Every site that I've seen that talks about BMI has said that serious athletes should be at, or slightly over, the high end of the "ideal" 19-25 range.
If a Barbie doll was a real person, she wouldn't be able to walk. Her proportions are completely wrong.
I feel like size four is only attractive on certain people, just like certain people can make size 14 look gorgeous. It all depends. I wouldn't advise everyone to aim for size four just like I wouldn't advise everyone to aim for size 14. Both can be equally unhealthy or equally healthy, depending on the person.
I am a size four. But I'm also only 5'5. I could probably go up to a size 8 before I started looking 'too heavy,' although I admittedly freak out a little every time I gain 5 pounds since my weight is usually really constant.
Quote from: MarySue on March 28, 2009, 10:46:59 PM
Every site that I've seen that talks about BMI has said that serious athletes should be at, or slightly over, the high end of the "ideal" 19-25 range.
And yet another person who is more or less overweight rates the same number and this is "ideal"?
The military used this to determine fitness, I knew guys who weightlifting and would be classified as overweight yet were in amazing shape. They had to get a doctor to sign off that they were healthy.
The sites that say athletes should still be within the specified BMI range are ultimately denying the fact BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle, never mind that it doesn't take into account "bone structure" and other quirks. Blood pressure, heart rate, body fat percentage, and one's waist:hip ratio are more reliable indicators for health as they are not as easily confounded by muscle, and even they are incomplete.
As for what is attractive, people aren't looking around and thinking, "oh, she's hot, she must have a BMI of 19." People have their own standards for physical appearance and well-being, and I don't think many people have their own line up closely with BMI.