If you want to see hatred google thinspo or pro ana on You Tube. The jealous fatties say all sorts of horrible things about lean and normal women under the guise of help. They think that size zero is for anorexics but nothing could be further from the truth. Not so long ago most women wore what today is called a size zero.

Petite sizes 0 and 00 come close to catalog sizing, sometimes measuring 31.5-24-33. However, these clothes are cut short, as they are designed for women 5'4" and under.

Sizing has been changing in the US for the last 50 years, but the pace has accelerated recently - along with the increasing amount of people who are overweight or obese. In the 1950s the average women was 5'3" and had 34-35" hips, compared to 5'4.5" and 42-43" hips today. In short - the average mid-century American woman would be a 'size 0' in pants today.

The biggest repercussion of the vanity size inflation is that women who are slim or petite, wearing a 2/4 until a few years ago, are no longer able to find clothing which fits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_zero

Size 0 is the equivalent to a UK size 4.

Next time some woman says she's "only a size 8" know this, SHE'S FAT!

I agree, I'm a UK 6 and it's nigh impossible to find anything suitable for a gronw-up woman even over here, where severe obesity is still very unusual but overweight is the new 'normal' among adults.

What do you think about the fact that hip sizes have increased by 8 inches?

I think it's safe to say that, whetever it is, it's NOT genetics!

I can't really see how anyone could seriously doubt that people are decidedly fatter now than a few generations ago. In my neck of the woods doing the army is mandatory for all young men, and the military naturally keeps detailed records of the boys' health and fitness.

If I remember correctly, they say that the average weight has increased some 5 kilos during the last 10 years - and their physical fitness has declined alarmingly as well. They've done the same basic fitness-tests (good old Cooper) over several decades, so the records are available for the whole young male population over a long period of time.

Married2ASweatHog:

You present yourself as very bright chap. I'm just amazed how you failed to pick on certain things: (and while I agree that that the clothing industry has somewhat modified their sizing structure in order for women to feel better about themselves, I will point the following)

1. Just because the "average" American woman has 42-43" hips doesn't mean every person does. I am sure you know how an average is calculated. Basically, the higher will "pull up the average". So, to give you an idea, you could have 20 women that are size 35 hips and 10 that are 45. That would give you an average of 38.3 inches, which is an AVERAGE but does not necessarily represent reality.

2. I would not go as far as saying a size 8 is fat! That is the equivalent to a size 10-12 in the UK and I have yet to meet a person wearing that size who is fat!

QUOTE:
2. I would not go as far as saying a size 8 is fat! That is the equivalent to a size 10-12 in the UK and I have yet to meet a person wearing that size who is fat

I'm 164 cm and a Euro 34/UK6/US4. If I was a UK 10 I would consider myself decidedly fat - and I'd argue that the average grown-up woman who wears this size is in fact at least slightly overweight.

In fact that's the size I was when I was some 15 kg heavier than now, and my bmi at that time was 27, ie above the 'overweight' marker. Although I'm quite muscular (extremely strong legs due to competitive sports as a kid) I was told by my doctor to loose weight. This was a decade and a half ago, so it's possible that even medical professionals have become more 'tolerant' of excess weight.

This is what I mean by saying that overweight has become the new 'normal'. Coming to think of it, I can't really see how a woman who is not an athlete of some sort or other could possibly not be too fat if her bmi is 25.

Well, my boss is really tiny and she got to a 10 (6-8 US) at her heaviest (when she weighed 10 st)

She is about 5'4", weighs 8.5 st. and is a size 8 currently (US 4-6). Although she was chunkier before, she was never overweight.

I've also attached a pic of my sister with her friend. They are both size 10.

I think that perhaps on some people size 10 is "fat;" however, on others, like the sister and friend above, it might be more on the "normal/slender" side. I say this because I currently wear a solid US 8 and am 5'7", and I know I need to lose about 10 lb, according to my personal trainer, and I'm working on that. That would probably put me at a solid US 6 (of course all of this depends on the designers/labels). When I was 15-20 lb lighter than I am now, I was wearing a US 2/4 and I looked pretty thin, had absolutely no breasts or ass, and my face was so narrow and sunken that people actually thought I was sick/tired/sad/older than I was. That's what happens to me when I fall below a size US 6. I personally would prefer not to look like that again. Now that I'm older, I prefer a more athletic look, and I'm very muscular right now. So, I don't really agree that "sizes," especially with all the variation from different manufacturers/designers, as well as the fact that some people wear their clothes on the tighter side and some wear their clothes on the looser side, are an accurate designator of who's fat and who's not for the most part and to a certain extent.

The sizes are apparently rummy, to say the least. The girls in the picture definitely don't look fat to me.

I guess it definitely depends on the body structure.

Not everyone is built the same, some people have bigger/smaller frames, I suppose.