This entry is heavy on the italics and heavy on the research. Stick with me and give me your feedback.
I received this comment, in response to my entry on wearing a size 2 pair of jeans:
You
asked me what size you would have been 50 years ago, using this logic.
There isn't any logic involved in the clothing manufacturer's way of
doing things. Fifty years ago women were slimmer. Weighing 150 pounds
was pretty much the exception, not the rule. Average weight for a woman
was around 120, or less. Even today 150 pounds isn't going to get
anyone into a size 2
To which I will add my own logic.
I absolutely agree that clothing manufacturer's have changed their sizes. To wit,
- In 1950 mannequins closely resembled the average measurements of women. The average hip measurement of mannequins and women were 34 inches. By 1990 the average hip measurement was 37 inches, while the average mannequins hip measured only 31 inches
- What is the UK's average-sized waist?
- Average UK waist in 1951: 27.5inches (about 70cm)
- Average waist in London in 2005: 32 inches (about 81cm)
- What is the average UK dress size? Size 14
- Average UK dress size in 1950: Size 12
Average dress size in the USA in 1950: Size 12
Average dress size in the USA in 2005: Size 16-18
Percentage of UK women who are size 16 plus: 47%
- What size are your hips?
- Average UK hip size in 1955: 39 inches (about 99cm)
Average hip size in the USA: 43 inches (about 109cm)
I really found this stunning: Back in 1951, during the era of post-war food rationing, a typical
woman measured 5ft 3in tall, had a 37in bust, a 27.5in waist, 39in hips
and weighed 9st 10lb (136 pounds). Today, a typical British woman would weigh in at
10st 3.5lb (143.5), be 5ft 4.5in tall, and carry an extra 1.5in around the bust
and hips and 6in around the middle....the whole population of the UK, whether they liked it or not, ate a
diet from 1939 until rationing was lifted (in the late 1940's?) that
was vegetable-based and very low in fats. Furthermore, most people used
public transportation or bicycled or walked (whether they liked it or
not) because of gasoline rationing and much lower ownership of
automobiles. (After the historic lifting of rationing, the population's
diet as a whole became pretty poor.)
I completely agree with this. War rationing means less food. Fewer autos mean more walking. Less intake+ more output = slimmer people. I also believe that wearing girdles had something to do with sizing.
Food sizing has also changed, and not for the better, some times. I've spoken about this before. It
may be hard to believe that in the 1950s, Coca-Cola was packaged in
6.5-ounce bottles. Twelve-ounce cans and 20 oz bottles were next in the
upsizing timeline, and now it's possible to get a super-sized soft
drink at a fast food restaurant containing 42 oz or more. That's more
than one liter! The original bottle of Coke was 81 calories. The
super-sized beverage is over 300 calories (it would be more, but you
get lots of ice included).
As a result, what was a size 8 in the 1950s had become a 4 by the 1970s and 00 today.
The last remark I don't agree with. And I don't really see that it matters, to be quite honest.
A size is a size is a size. It's a number. Just like that number on the scale, it could be a lot, or it could mean absolutely nothing. Just like all of us, I have bought clothing in the past that isn't the same size as I thought I wore. My point is that I wear a size that I've NEVER worn - I went out of children's size into a misses 6 and then grew larger and larger. NO matter if my size 2 is the equivalent to a 10 in the 1950's - I don't live in the 1950's, and have no clothing from the 1950's to compare my current size to.
I don't compare myself to women from the 1950's - I compare myself to other women today. I know that I wore a tight size 18 two years ago. I know that I wear a size 2 today. That's all I care about, not the difference in clothing sizes, or the "vanity sizing" that manufacturers employ to make us feel better. I DO feel better. I DO look better. I wear a much smaller size than I did two years ago.
That's all I care about. That's what I want for all of us - to wear a size that we are happy with, to be in the best shape possible, and to be healthy. If it came out that I was fixating on sizes, it wasn't my intent. Internet writing is easy to misunderstand, apparently.
I congratulate you...and I also think that the manufacturers have changed sizes in the last twenty years. You look like a size 10, and that is a compliment, and a size 2 used to be for children or someone so skinny they were near death.
Posted by: Peggy Lynn
To which I replied, asking what size I would have been, fifty years ago, weighing 206 pounds, following this logic. A 26?
I received this reply: