The Average American

I had a similar problem...  when I was at my lowest weight - about 140 at 5'6 also - my bones were sticking out.  My hips bones stuck out, my ribs stuck out.  I looked anorexic despite being at a healthy weight.  In fact, I had a very mortifying "intervention" done at me at work.  I look healthiest at around 160-180.    Some people really are big boned.  That's were I think we need to pay more attention to body fat % and other indicators rather than just the number on the scale to see how we are doing.

Size inflation is a very real thing.  I've seen people post here who are a size 10, but are still technically obese.  I once even saw someone excited to get into a size 6, but was over a 30 bmi.  Sizes vary so much by company/designer too.

I can see how some people find it really difficult to find clothes that fit!  When a size 0 or 2 fits like an old size 6 or 8 used to many years ago.    If you want to really see how far sizes have come, check out some old patterns from the 1950s.    For example, here is a size 16 pattern with a bust measurement (largest part of chest) of 34 inches.   Now at Old Navy, a 34 inch chest is a size small or a 4!  That's a huge shift.

34 inch bust =  size 16

versus

34 inch bust = size 4

It makes it very hard to gauge or health or progress by sizes.   We can't compare the size we are today to the size we were 10 years ago, for example, because sizes have changed.    Oh well...  It's still fun to see smaller clothing sizes fit.  ;)

Roaman's/Woman Within, the plus size catalogs, have been taking heat for years for not using more plus size models. Their response? When they show the clothes on plus size models, the sales drop. They're selling a fantasy. An expensive fantasy to consumers who have few options.

I still get their catalogs, and they do use some "plus size" models, maybe a size 10 or so. I wonder how much pinning they have to do for the photos.

I find it harder and harder to find anything I want in their catalogs at any price. So much of it seems too fancy and fussy. Who wants a $70 blouse?

Vanity sizing and lack of uniformity in what constitutes a certain size by the industry is not doing us any favours. Back in the 80s I was a size 10 and felt and looked good.  Now a 10 would fit a 14-16 from the 80's. At least for me when I see size 10 on the label, I think I'm doing really well weight wise but that is not in fact the truth. How many of us use size to gage how we are doing?

At least for men, pants and jackets are based on inches so it doesn't give men a false sense of what their size is.  

I recently saw a clothes rack where sizes were labelled -2 and -4! How can you be a negative size!!! This is ridiculous.  Nothing will change until the customer starts demanding realistic sizing and conformity.  I don't see that happening any time soon.  Pretty soon a size 10 will fit someone weighing 200 pounds! We are fooling nobody but ourselves.  Even England is not as vain and their sizes are smaller than ours.

This is a great discussion and I'm sorry I'm getting to it a little on the later side. Originally when I had posted the link to the article on the size 0-2 fashion model comparing herself to the size 12 fasion model I wanted people to think about beauty at every size, including the bigger sizes, and to perhaps embrace themselves as they are because to truly love yourself you've got to think you look great!

That being said, discussing the issue from a health point, rather than just from a point of visually pleasing images is interesting.

I also can't really make a decision about which is healthier because a lot depends on height and body makeup. You can have someone who is a size 2 who is all skin and bones and fat... and you can have someone who is a size 12 who has very little body fat but who is mostly bones and skin and lean muscle mass. Both very different body types... which one is healthier? Probably the bigger sized person-- if they're mostly composed of lean muscle mass then they should conceptually be the more physically fit, well-oiled "machine" compared to the bag of bones and skin and fat even if it does fit into the smaller package.

Either way I think that images of models who are very heavy AND models who are very thin can be damaging to teenagers and adolescents who are just starting to develop their senses of self and self-appreciation... these are the ones who develop body image issues and alot of it does have to do with images in the media.

But like it or not, whether they're seeing images in the media or just looking around at the kids in the hallways in school, kids at this age are going to have the potential for self-doubt and potential issues dealing with self-worth. I know that the media makes it worse, but aside from moving away to a deserted island somewhere, I'm not sure how we could change it much here in America.

I just want to thank you for raising such a good thought provoking question. I chose not to add to any of the commentary, as I see value in all of the shared opinions. But I do thank you for starting this dialog.

Noone is "average" or "normal."  We all have our own unique combination of height, size, and shape.  The fashion industry should represent us by using a VARIETY of models.  It's not their job (and probably not their intent) to dictate what is "normal" or healthy.  I'm pretty sure they are thinking more along the lines of fame and $$$.