Actually, I have an adult niece that would need to gain weight to fit a 00. She's only 4' 10" (probably with shoes) and weighs 87 lbs. She's not overly thin at all! She has a *really* hard time finding 'adult' shoes and clothing that can be fitted to her. :(

The numbered sizes have become meaningless. At 5'6 and 140-something pounds, I can wear everything from a small to a large, from a 4 to a 14, depending on the article of clothing. It didn't use to be this way, but that's how it is now and I can't see it changing precisely because there are countless manufacturers out there. Even in a single manufacturer's line I find that those size 4 jeans might fit me in blue denim but in white denim I can't squeeze in and have to go up a size or two. It makes no sense, but it is what it is.

I don't know if it's been mentioned upthread, and I don't know if they still do this because I haven't shopped there in ages, but I always found Chico's sizing to be annoying. (Just checked their website and it appears they do still use their "unique" sizing.) If I normally wear a size 6 dress, I'd have to look for 0.5 on their labels. I think that's just silly to go outside the norm like that, and I assume those numbers are supposed to make us feel better about our body sizes which only feeds into the notion that numbers even matter in the first place. At least I know my range in conventional sizing and don't have to stop and figure it out all over again.

I was 00 most of my life at 5'2 and 94lbs. Now in my 40's I am a size 0. Not sick looking by any means. I run marathons and am fit. I am just petite and small boned. My wrists and ankles are child sized. My mother was tiny and never weighed over 100 lbs.

I know too there has been a backlash against size 0/00 models but they're 5'10" or so, which is very different waist-to-height ratio than a size 00 petite woman. And I don't find it hard to imagine some young women are naturally and healthily that tall and slender. But fewer than the modeling world would support.

When I was in graduate school, I had a roommate from China who was maybe 4' 10". She wasn't rail thin at all, but she did have a very tiny frame. She normally shopped in the girls section. But when she started job hunting, she needed interview clothes and asked me to help her. That was my first introduction into size 0 (I wear plus sizes). It was interesting seeing the other side of the coin.

I also sew, and that really highlights size inflation, because pattern sizes generally haven't suffered size inflation. You can't just get a size 12 pattern because that's what you wear off the rack; you really need to look at the measurement chart. And it's usually a painful shock.

"I think a size 0, or 00 is fine for really small women. It beats having to go to children's sizing."

There have always been small women. They used to wear a size 6. Then they started calling the smallest size a 4. Then that size was a 2. Now it's a 0 or 00. But the industry/culture has decided that calling what is essentially the old size 6, a 00, sends a vanity message to women who quest to be seen as smaller than small. Instead of wanting to wear clothes sized 00, try to figure out why even the illusion of taking up space is so abhorrent to women!

Zero means nothing. Not there, doesn't exist, empty. So what the he** is 00?

I view 0 as a simple point on an arbitrary continuum. Even with temperature, 0 is different if the scale is Fahrenheit or Celsius. If the scale is arbitrary, then 00 is really not a problem. I would not worry so much about the signal it sends to young women about sizing when it is put in competition with all the other messages being sent out. There is no one ideal/standard and so women who are very thin often wish they were curvier. Women who are curvy wish they were less so. Women who are tall wish they were short. Women who are short wish they were tall. There are women with curly hair who wish it were straight, and on and on it goes.

The grass is always greener.

However, I'm glad I'm a woman who is on the tall and "regular" bone-sized side.

Most of the time, I am fine with height and on the larger size bone structure except for when I shop for shoes or other accessories. That is one area that has not been infiltrated by vanity sizing and where options become much narrower. Gloves are a particular problem for me. I have seen many cute leather gloves in shades I would love to own but they are always too small, with the fingers too narrow. Athletic socks are often made in larger sizes, but nice wool dress socks, not so much. More shoe manufacturers offer size 11 than they used to, but the selection is still often limited.

tishtosh- Yes, shoe sizes seem consistent, it's just that my feet have gotten larger! I don't mind, though.

Now, women's hats need to be bigger!

I had a lot of foot problems in life and only recently learned that my feet are like E width *sob* some mens' sneakers are too narrow for me. It has made shoe shopping easier: I just walk into Naturalizer and ask to try on anything in stock in my size. Usually about 3 pairs of shoes to choose from!

I always feel like Peggy Hill buying shoes at the drag queen boutique.

The young women I know are more concerned about who has the best eyeliner and eyebrows than they are about overall body size. These young women have discovered makeup as an art form and that's their focus, not whether they wear a 2 or a 22. Like them or not, there are now pop icons who embrace and promote a larger, curvy form, and that does have at least some impact on the way that heavier girls view their own bodies.

And their brows are totally on point. ;-)

DD was a size 00 in middle school, and went up to a size 0 her freshman year. She's a size 6-8 now at 22 y/o. I agree that it's ridiculous to call sizes "00" or "0", though. But, she was just normal and took after me at that age. Naturally very slender, very physically active, and although I ate like horse, I never put on any weight . . . until ages 20, 30, 40, etc. It was a rude awakening to finally have to start thinking before I ate fattening foods (LOL)! DH and I had many talks with DD over the years preparing her for those possible incremental weight gains and how to avoid them . . . without dieting. She thankfully listened and now at 22 years old, eats really healthfully, is great at planning out weekly menus, shopping for food, and she cooks like a pro. Of course, with several uncles, aunts and cousins who are professional chefs, that probably comes with the genes (LOL). She is even teaching two of her roommates at college how to cook and plan healthful meals. And, do they ever need it! I just wish her big brother was so diligent with his eating habits, but he's slowly getting there!

The only thing more ridiculous than 00 is 000 petite. Yes, J Crew, I mean you.

000 petite

Of course there needs to be properly fitting clothing for petite women, but I agree that these arbitrary numbers are unnerving.

PS don't get me started on petite xxxs. Which by the way, is often sold out.

OMG. who comes up with this stuff??? And why??

I think the "why" is that manufacturers are making clothing for very small women who don't want to buy child or junior girl clothes.

What are they going to do? Negative numbers?

The sizing system is rather arbitrary, not scale.

No, the "why" is that they have turned what used to be a size 12 into a size 6, a 10 into a 4, etc. to appeal to women's vanity. There has always been smaller sized clothing, it's just the number on the label that has changed.

To be logical the fashion industry should start the smallest size as a 2 and work their way up. Because as mentioned above, zero is nothing so it makes no sense to be a size nothing. You would be invisible. Instead, the fashion industry is basing sizing from the the most popular perceived skinny size and then going down.

Well, zero, "0" is a number. It is not nothing, or a vacuum. It is on the number line between 1 and -1 and you can do mathematical functions with zero.

Numbers in clothing sizing represent a physical size, not their arithmetical value.

Clothing sizes could be represented by Greek letters, Roman numerals or even animals ;-)

lol mimi, I am in no position to get in a mathematical debate about the number zero. I was just making an observation based on the perception of the number zero. The baseline on a scale is zero, which means there is nothing on it. If you have zero apples, you have nothing. IMO, based on the ways that we use the number zero in every day life, making it a size is not logical. But honestly, I really don't care that much. My days of being a 00 are far behind me :)

Size is so not consistent that I don't let it bother me. I recently bought a MK top that was an extra small. When I saw the size I didn't think"oh cool, I wear andXS", I thought "Wow, how screwed up is MK's sizing". I am not heavy, I'm not thin but I wear a size 0 petite in Chico's pants. I would say that I am an 8 or 10 if the sizes would be determined like they were 15 to 20 years ago. Also even the same size, by the same manufacturer, in the exact style varies so buying clothes is a total crap shoot unless you try everything on.

I guess my point is that it's arbitrary and in a way, 0, 00 has become stigmatized.

It should be stigmatized. It's awful, telling women and girls they should be so thin as to wear a size 0.

No wonder so many girls are barfing up their meals. Anorexia...stigma...Fashion industry has a lot of guilt there.

And no, 0 is nothing. It represents nothing. Minus numbers represent a deficit; positive numbers represent a plurality.

There is no such thing as a deficit of the human body, let alone a 0. It is mass. It cannot weigh or be a size 0.

There is also no such thing as a negative-body size.

You're imbuing negative meaning where there not need be. Some people are tiny and I think it's the fashion industry pushing pelvic-boned and heroin chic models down the runways and in every fashion magazine that's the real problem.

Not a numeral, especially when sizes are in such flux.

OMG, 0 is a numeral, not nothing. Hear you go. Do a little reading.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63315.html

Here we go per usual. A hammer in search of a nail!

Hey, all you size 0, 00, 000. Do you wish you were a positive integer?

Do you feel stigmatized? Do you feel that the fashion industry is basically saying you're anorexic? Do you feel judged? Are you upset by being in the 0 categories?

I can't answer, since I'd be dead for awhile if I were that size, so I'd love to hear how you feel about it.

I just don't think many people look at it the way Tibbrix does.

I am a size 0. Most of my life 00. Doesn't bother me, truthfully never thought about it being degrading. It really only applies to dresses and skirts . My jeans are a 24 and tops XS or XXS. It's just a size like those. I am far from anorexic. Just small framed. I find European sizing to fit better bc they are not vanity sized and cut slimmer. For example I will splurge on Jimmy Choo boots because they fit my 12" circumference calves. American boots swim on me.

Meanwhile as a young bicyclist I was told by a snooty clerk to shop at the old lady shoe store as they accommodate big calves much better. I had fantastically muscular calves back then! But I'm built like a potato farmer. I like that we are all different sizes and I can relate to finding it hard to find clothing that fits. I grew up in a household that had an adult who was 4'8" and under 90 lbs soaking wet and an adult who was 6'1" and muscular.

I have to buy some things in the boys department yet I very rarely wear a mens small, I more regularly take a medium.

I pay no attention to the size, I buy what fits no matter what the label says and don't feel stigmatized by any particular size.

I pay no attention to the size, I buy what fits no matter what the label says and don't feel stigmatized by any particular size.

I think this is the appropriate response to the numbers on the tag. Who cares what the number says? Do you like the garment? Can you afford it? Does it fit?

Don't you think a woman who wears a size 24 knows she's a large woman, just like a woman who wears a size 00 or a -2 knows that her body is smaller than average?

The number on the tag is there to help guide women into the appropriately sized garment, not to degrade or shame or insinuate anything other than hey, if you're a larger [or smaller] woman, you might want to try on this size.

Why must we be outraged over Every.Little.Thing these days?

I have worn a zero, and all 3 of my DD's have worn a 0. My almost 40 yo youngest DD, at 4'11" and 98lbs, still wears a 0, and she has had 2 kids. She has quite a curvy figure and would be tough competition for young women half her age. She doesn't eat meat, only fish and chicken, and does Jazzercize 3 times a week. She also eats sweets like ice cream and cookies! It's her God-given metabolism, and it's the 'curse' of our family. Neither myself, or any of my kids are junk food junkies, so that might also contribute to our lack of an 'extra layer'.

If the number on the tag was really there to help guide women into the appropriately sized garment, wouldn't the sizing be more consistent? My DH can buy any pair of pants in a size 34 and they fit him in the waist. I can carry 20 pairs of jeans into the dressing room, all in the same size, and some will fit, some will barely fit, some I won't be able to get past my hips, and some will fall off. I personally think that women's sizing is not designed to help us in any way, but rather to torture us. That said, I'm not outraged, but it is annoying and doesn't exactly make me look forward to shopping. I care what the number says because I don't want to carry 500 items into the dressing room that have no chance of fitting me!

Creating 000 is the clothing industries response to the increased average woman's weight and size, not their desire to make people strive to be skinny. The 000 is a 2 in the late 1980's. A lot more people used to be size 2, easily. Now most people are what would have been double digits so the clothing industry adjusted down to make people feel happier to buy clothes. It is about making people NOT feel stigmatized by their number.

There was a period when it was hard to find moderately priced clothing in sizes that fit smaller frames, the creation of the 0 was necessary, as sizes kept moving it became necessary to create the 00, and then the 000.

This move in sizes has not made more people seek to be size 0 or smaller, but it has possibly made people more comfortable to be heavier. Fell okay as an 8? Great, would you feel as good if you were a 14?

Just like Caroline Hamilton, I have trouble with finding boots-I need 12, max 13 circumference. Unless it's made in Spain or Italy or France-no boots here for me. Actually, no flats too-the foot is too narrow. So I splurge on European flats and boots. I wear flats the most.

And just like Robo I like that everybody's different, and looks differently, and all..I think it's fascinating. It brings its challenges of course, but what doesn't.

As for finding clothes-well, I can take things to the fitting room, and they will all technically fit..will they all flatter me the same? No, still not.

Jeans are hard to find in any case unless you're really young yet..I found a manufacturer I'm happy with, several years ago, and since then I don't try any other jeans at all. Saves a lot of time.

But if it happens so that I have lets say a bad hair day, And I happen to be in the store that day, And the garment still makes me look better, despite me having a bad hair day-well, then I know it's a good choice:)

I'm more bothered with declining quality and growing prices..and with myself because I wore mini until recently, and can't justify it anymore. The sizing stayed the same:)

Obesity is an epidemic in America. What does the clothing industry do? They have recreated sizes to make people feel better about themselves. I think the old Metropolitan Weight Table was much more realistic and am sorry that it has been mostly discarded. Yesterday two of my students gave me their recent health exam forms-one weighs almost 300 lbs. and the other almost 200 lbs. They are seniors in high school and can barely walk without effort. I am not sure what size clothing they wear, but I am very concerned about their health status. Maybe they wear a (today's size) 16-18, but that used to be a "custom order". I don't have the answers, but I do think this is a huge problem in our country (pun intended).

I think mens clothes are starting to fall into the same trap with different fits and cuts.

In some ways this is good because otherwise I would have to wear custom dress shirts and the waist of many suit pants would be halfway up my chest.

So a 32 is no longer a 32. It's still much easier than women because styles still fall within a very narrow range.

And men have much lower expectations regarding fit. And they don't have high expectations regarding camouflaging perceived "flaws".

I am also horrified and disgusted. A case where size seems to matter a LOT. Shameful how we have to measure everything, and judge it. As hello world said, it is the clothing industries response to the increased average woman's weight and size, not their desire to make people strive to be skinny. Size labels should not be a competition, a goal, or judged. Sheesh :(

Part of it is they would have to completely start over if they wanted to change the sizing numbers simply to get them all on the plus size.

My sister's town completely revamped their street address system when the area was small to medium but growing rapidly. A logistical nightmare that took years. Imagine trying to renumber the street addresses in Manhattan to something that would make sense in the 21st century. That's what I think restandardizing women's clothes sizes would be I think.

It's so hard, too, because I think we do come in a wider variety of shapes than men. women with the same waist size can have very very different bust and hips measurements. Guys vary of course especially in the neck and shoulders but for the most part they go pretty straight up-and-down. All I can say is thank God for stretch fabric, without it I would never have a comfortable pair of pants that didn't look like a tent. Although I am actually very happy about the palazzo pant trend returning.

Size labels should not be a competition, a goal, or judged. Sheesh :(

And they aren't. Unless we allow them to be.

I do understand that it's frustrating that sizing is not uniform, as I've stated elsewhere, not even within the same manufacturer's line. That said, I stand by my assertion that the numbers are there to guide us. If I'm a 4, I might be able to wear a 2 and I might be able to wear a 6, but I know not to spend my time at the racks where the much larger sizes live. The sizing does guide. That's why it exists. It only shames and degrades us if we let it.

Except for certain styles of Levis jeans, I am not aware of any clothes where the sizes are displayed on the Outside of the clothes for others to see. And if you wanted to you could remove the inside label.

Obesity is an epidemic in America. What does the clothing industry do? They have recreated sizes to make people feel better about themselves.

While it is obvious that obesity is a very real problem in America and becoming one in many other parts of the world, bodies are also changing in other ways. While there are still many petite, tiny women, there are many larger boned women as well and that is not generally due to dietary choices. Some of the changes in sizing reflects that times have changed.

Pal: My husband has many of the same problems with clothing. He has a 30 inch waist and a 30 inch inseam. For length of sleeves in shirts, he really needs a small most of the time but those are often too tight across the shoulders. Dress shirts almost always have to be tailored because his neck is on the thicker side but it is impossible to find the neck length with sleeves that fit. Sport coats in a 38 short still have the sleeves cut too long. It was even worse when he was younger and had a 28 inch waist.

Interesting thought. My mom grew up in poverty and no one (male or female) in her family of 10 is taller than 5'4" or so. I'm 5'7", my sister is 5'11" and most of my cousins are at least 5'6" up to about 6'. Still not an exceptionally tall family but much taller than the previous generation, which I can only put down to childhood diet. We're not much fatter than the previous generation but most of the family, old and young, is kind of dumpling shaped. Except my sister, she got my dad's height and skinniness. I got his Roman nose and boat feet.

Tishtosh

I can now only buy dress shirts at Brooks Brothers, because I can get a large neck and shoulders, very short sleeves and a relatively very narrow (for the neck size) waist. They are expensive, but less than custom, and probably less than buying a cheaper shirt and then getting them tailored properly

Before, where I grew up there was a Japanese woman who would take my shirts apart at the shoulder, move the sleeves up, and taper the sides, and she did not charge like she was making a whole shirt. The first time I tried to get sleeves shortened anywhere else they got chopped off at the bottom with the cuffs moved up and there was no split left above the cuff.

-----

Poverty has changed in America. If you look at the films made in Appalachia in the 1960s, the poor were painfully thin for the most part. They were also poor in a different way. I just got back from San Diego, which seems to have a significant homeless problem and I saw several very dirty, homeless lying right on the sidewalk in the garbage/utility areas of a large building---looking at their cell phones.

Now morbid obesity and poverty are related, at least where I live. I even see morbid obesity among the homeless, barring the obvious drug addicts. Many of the patients I see in the teaching program that gets referrals from the public health system are obese, and some of them are so morbidly obese they can't walk unassisted.

Most of the poor here seem to eat almost nothing but junk food or fast food, and this is a change from the past. And fast food is full of carbs and hormones. But it's all relatively cheap compared to keeping good food around the house.

------

I also think men's bodies are changing and this also has to do with hormones in food. In the generation younger than mine, especially--the first one to grow up on chicken fingers and the like, there are many many body types on males that are feminized. Bottom heavy, curvy hips and thighs, pear shaped, man boobs. (Some of this may apparently have to do with Ritalin or other ADD drugs too?).

Even otherwise thin men in this generation seem to have very large asses and hips and little pouchy bellies. This is not how men were built when I was in my 20s, There were thin guys and there were fat guys and there were muscular guys, but there was not the thin with subcutaneous fat in certain areas type of build.

Some of the changes in sizing reflects that times have changed.

True words. At maturity, I have always been tall and slim with a defined waist. I am especially long from neck to waist, making it difficult to find a dress that isn't a sheath fit properly. Even if I can find tall sizes, most mfg seem to equate tall with a medium or larger (see Eddie Bauer sizing for example). And waist sizes in clothing has definitely expanded.

One can only surmise that some sort of average is being used to produce clothing in mass quantities these days. But then there is also a variation among sizes with respect to brands and among price points too, so it makes it even harder. If today's size 4 is 1970's size 6 or 8, no wonder we now have 0's and 00's. My DGD is very petite, and except for the fact she is very toned & muscular from playing soccer, would likely be a 0 instead of a 2.

trishtoshnm

In what other ways are bodies changing? Larger boned women are not due to dietary changes...I do agree that some of the changes in frame size might be do to better nutrition, but overall I tend to disagree. The science does not support this assertion.

"Obesity is an epidemic in America. What does the clothing industry do? They have recreated sizes to make people feel better about themselves.

While it is obvious that obesity is a very real problem in America and becoming one in many other parts of the world, bodies are also changing in other ways. While there are still many petite, tiny women, there are many larger boned women as well and that is not generally due to dietary choices. Some of the changes in sizing reflects that times have changed."

We lived in Tokyo for a few years before coming to CA ... now that they have had access to McDonalds, KFC, Starbucks, etc. for many years, you can see chubby Japanese teens and young adults. I passed a Japanese high school and university every day, on the way to the international school my kids attended. They now have government/medical programs ( Metabo Law ) to monitor weight and try to stop the problem from escalating. Need to search if they have had any success with these programs.

I now wear a 0/2 and I do not fit into my old size 2 pants from 25 years ago. My mother used to be a perfect sample size 8 ... she has gained some weight in the stomach area, but can now wear a size 6. "Weight loss" through shrinking size labels!