Originally Posted by bvtaylor

I have to say that I keep coming back to this thread for reference because the information and discussion here is so good.

As I've lost a little weight recently, I really see the remarkable size creep exactly as described in the way that sizes are analyzed (particularly at Wal-Mart). Although I'm pleased to wear a 7-9 off "some" racks at the moment, and even small shirts, I know that is extremely euphemistic and doesn't really mean anything at all. I'm not small. What's in a size? I mean I have an honest 20 lbs on my short frame to lose to be truly fit. A truly fit person shouldn't be wearing "extra small" that's just silly. A fit person should be wearing "medium" and a thin person "small"... right?

I sure wish that sizes for women would be more standard across manufacturers. I mean my husband can go and find pants anywhere in a particular size and have a reasonable assurance that they fit based on his waist and inseam measurements. Why can't they do that for women? I mean a bust, waist, hip, and inseam measurement should be enough to be able to come up with some sort of a "size."

Instead we focus on sizes the same way we focus on carbs sometimes *LOL*... try to get down as close to zero as we can, regardless of what it really "means."