American size 0?

This may not be the right place to discuss this, so I'm sorry in advance if it has to be moved or whatever.

I am very confused about the sizing system when converting from English to American clothing. I always thought that US sizes were two smaller than British ones, i.e. UK 14 = US 10, UK 10 = US 6 etc etc.

Thus, the much debated size 0, or the even smaller 00 would equate to the UK sizes 4 and 2 (which would be omg so tiny!). For years I have been following the whole 0 and 00 size debacle about models and how they are far too thin and how Posh Beckham is a 00 and therefore really tiny and came away thinking 0 and 00s were utterly unattainably small sizes.

So today, wanting a nice pair of jeans for Christmas I took my mum to the only Abercrombie and Fitch store in England, in London's Savile Row, knowing it had newly opened and wanting to try out their clothes. I duely went up to the shelves and picked off what I thought to be the American equivalent of my size, which is a small UK 8 to large UK 6. Looking at the 4s and 2 though I realised immediately they would be far too big. As I was clearly looking confused a tiiiiiny shop assistant came over and recommened me a size 00 to 0, and I actually laughed. I took a handful of 0s to try on nevertheless, but kept saying to my mum I was very skeptical of them fitting. I get into the changing room and lo, they fit and even with space to spare in a couple of the non "skinny fit" ones.

How can I be a size 0? I am not that skinny at all, is it the A&F sizing being off? Are they usually big? I am confused as for me the 0 and 00 sizings are ridiculously small and I don't see myself as that small. And not only that, if a 0 = UK 8 then that isn't that thin! I mean a LOT of people are that size and it isn't ridiculously tiny.

What are the exact size conversions? Is it different at A&F? Help anyone?

when i was little, in the 1980s, i never saw sizes 0 and 00.

i think sizes have grown bigger in the USA, to make us feel better about being so fat.

i wear a size 4 in most stores here in the USA. look at my pic. there's no way i'm a size 4, really! not according to when i grew up. if marilyn monroe was a size 10, i am probably more akin to her size than what i knew as a 4 growing up.

in the end, the lesson is that the number doesn't matter one bit. you need to get what fits you properly.

but i won't lie and say that it doesn't make me feel good to say i wear a size 4, however fallacious. 

i've always been a size 00 and it's so hard to find clothes...so now i'm trying to gain at least twenty pounds. For my age and height me being a size 00 is very unhealthy

I'm pretty sure every year sizes just seem to get smaller, even though the clothes don't. Vanity sizing in the US is ridiculus (a lot of the clothing sold in Canada is American). When I was a size 16 a long time ago, there was a pair of US size 7's in my closet that fit me. And I was a Canadian 16 which I'm pretty sure is a UK 18?  

a size 0 is not nearly as small as it once was. I'm pretty sure a 000 is going to have to come out soon to compensate. Then a 0000, but its not that Americans are really getting smaller... companies just want more money.

The confusion is a combo of a couple things. First off, sizes have changed wildly in the last 50 years. I have a dress from my Grandma marked 'Size 11'--it's probably a size 2 or 3 now. Also, different brands size differently. Usually, the more expensive the brand, the smaller they fit. I think I size 00 in the clothes Posh Beckham buys is probably much, much smaller than a size 00 that either your or I could afford. You can really see the variation just looking at the difference between Old Navy and A&F--the sizes do not line up.

Hey Rastnim, from what I've heard (and watched on youtube), a size zero in the US is a size four in the UK. The thing is, A&F probably keeps the sizing the same, so you probably wear a zero in American sizes. But I have no clue, really. I haven't been a zero since 9th grade!! Gosh I wish... Anyway, I remember you posting about anorexia, and not eating for several days (I think like ten!!) so I really don't think you need to worry about sizes!

rastnim when I was in London in May of this year I felt that the size 4 there was huge!! Then again I had tried on a size 4 Barbour jacket and maybe Barbour is just made big but they didn't even make anything smaller than a 4. Then I tried on some clothes at a store called Dorothy Perkins and that is suppose to be for College aged girls and still the clothes was sort of big but not as big as at Barbour. I wear an American size 4-6 (I shop at A&E, Abercrombie, Jcrew etc) but really I want to be a zero and finally I just bought my winter coat and the size zero fits perfectly. I do not even think I look skinny and I'm not! I look thin/slim but I'm not tall (5'4) and I'm really small framed/small boned so that's probably why I need the smaller sizes. I would be skinny if I took a size zero and was taller but when you are only 5'4 it just means you are normal/slim.

I thought people were suppose to be smaller in Europe but they were not so small. The big difference I noticed was that people in England are thin-average or maybe a little chubby like only 10-15 pounds overweight and that's sort of what you can expect in Canada too. When I first moved to America 4 years ago from Canada I was mortified at how obese they are here!! This is the biggest difference between Europe and America--you see plump people all over the world but you only see obese people in the United States and there are so many of them, and the kids here are obese too! They just don't even know what a normal portion is here and it's sad :(

Haha, workoutaddict, hearing you say "a store called Dorothy Perkins" makes me laugh as here it is a very well known chain. Sorry, just made me giggle. And yes, Dorothy Perkins sizes are quite generous, I bought a top in a UK size 6 there the other day and it was actually quite baggy! Then I find I will go to another shop and I will fit snugly into an 8. Sizings are weird.

I guess the thing is I was half expecting to be depressed when I got there and only fit into the "fatty" sizes whilst surrounded by modelsque patrons and employees alike with perfect 00 bottoms. To fit easily into the second to smallest size, and probably therefore into the smallest size was a shock. I would have expected A&F especially to run small sizes and I heard they did.

I know I have a skewed body image because of my ED, but I really didn't think it could be that skewed and I am pretty sure it isn't. I know sizes can be weird and everyone varies from store to store but that is silly. I remember when I had a bmi of 13.9 and size 00 in gap literally fell off me. The shop assistant was like, uuh, try a belt? Therefore I was thinking 00s are only things that fit when you are seriously underweight. I also know there is a lot of debate about them making sizes bigger but branding them as small nowadays so that people don't know they are so big and that is a reason people are getting fatter.

Original Post by missreporter:

when i was little, in the 1980s, i never saw sizes 0 and 00.

i think sizes have grown bigger in the USA, to make us feel better about being so fat.

i wear a size 4 in most stores here in the USA. look at my pic. there's no way i'm a size 4, really! not according to when i grew up. if marilyn monroe was a size 10, i am probably more akin to her size than what i knew as a 4 growing up.

in the end, the lesson is that the number doesn't matter one bit. you need to get what fits you properly.

but i won't lie and say that it doesn't make me feel good to say i wear a size 4, however fallacious. 

There were size 0s in the late 80s and 90s at stores like the Gap and Limited but they are now super vanity sized. I am now 15 lbs heavier than that time and I am now sometimes even too small for a Gap size 0 which is the equivalent of a 2 in every other brand. And I totally agree, the lesson is the number is meaningless, buy what fits.

i understand the frustration completely!

i went into american eagle the other day to pick out a pair of jeans. sizes 2 and 4 were too big! so i tried a size 0 - they told me they would stretch, so i asked if i could try the size smaller and they said they didn't carry it.

gulp. 

okay, there's just no way. i'm 20 yrs old, 5'6" and 120lbs! and american eagle is for BITTY PEOPLE, like, preteens. 

there are lots of people out there smaller than me. i just don't like the idea that we're all sort of kidding ourselves, and i think it's kind of gross that stores have messed up sizes to make people feel better. there should be standards. 

rastnim no no silly you are not wearing fatty sizes and just look at you--you are so thin!! Please don't speak this way about yourself!! Talk about your body with respect and btw I added you because I also have screwed up body image issues and yup I also used to have an ED--who hasn't?! I'm just learning to deal with it.

But you can't go posting about wanting to be a size zero on this forum--they'll burn you at the stake!! lol

Sizes have changed in the US because there are no set standards, and vanity sizing.  One important thing to note, is that  people are getting taller with each passing generation.  My grandmother was under 5 foot, my mother is 5 ft 3, and I am 5 ft 8.  The pediatrician thinks my daughter will be 6 ft tall. The taller you are, the bigger your measurements will be at a normal weight. So a size 6 from 1950 is much smaller in measurements than a size 6 today, because todays standards are for a taller and thus bigger woman. That's why Marilyn Monroe was a size 10-12 (she was very petite) and could probably fit into a size 6-8 today.

Just in reference to A&F, I have always found that I am always a size smaller if not two sizes in their pants. They run bigger than most American sizes I've found.

American Eagle runs big too, about a size or so.

I feel the need to also point out that women used to squeeze themselves in to corsets to fit in to their clothes. I am aware that Americans are getting fatter but I think the change in sizing is also due to the fact that we no longer strap ourselves in to contraptions.

that and, notwithstanding the obesity trend, even people at healthy weights are just bigger, because of hormones in dairy and meat products.

i'm going to agree with everyone else and say it's vanity sizing. and i think it's even gotten worse just recently..

Original Post by missreporter:

when i was little, in the 1980s, i never saw sizes 0 and 00.

i think sizes have grown bigger in the USA, to make us feel better about being so fat.

i wear a size 4 in most stores here in the USA. look at my pic. there's no way i'm a size 4, really! not according to when i grew up. if marilyn monroe was a size 10, i am probably more akin to her size than what i knew as a 4 growing up.

in the end, the lesson is that the number doesn't matter one bit. you need to get what fits you properly.

but i won't lie and say that it doesn't make me feel good to say i wear a size 4, however fallacious. 

Exactly what she said.

Most clothing makers in the US vanity size.  There were no 0s 20 years ago, and 2s were impossibly small.  But as our waistlines grow, our sizes shrink.  I'm also a size 4, but in non-vanity-sized reality, I'm a 10.  Maybe an 8 if I suck it in.  :)

Original Post by skinnyogi:

I feel the need to also point out that women used to squeeze themselves in to corsets to fit in to their clothes. I am aware that Americans are getting fatter but I think the change in sizing is also due to the fact that we no longer strap ourselves in to contraptions.

The change in sizing has little or nothing to do with corsetry.  Corsets have been out of fashion for a very, very long time.  For what you say to be true, vanity sizing would have had to start 100 years ago; it's actually less than 20 years old.

Go to a vintage shop and try on a dress made in the 50s.  If you wear a size 0 in today's sizes, you'll discover that you're really a six.  Women were not wearing corsets in the 50s.  Girdles, sure, but girdles don't take off six inches.

It's really as simple as:  designers have figured out that if they vanity size, we're more likely to buy their clothing than another designer's.

If you were a size 10 at Gap, but a size 4 at Abercrombie, where would you shop? 

That's why they vanity size.

I've never bought anything at A&F, so I can't really say how their sizes run. I usually stick to Ann Taylor, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor Loft, GAP, Old Navy, Jcrew and department store brands.

Back in the late 80s (in my late teens), I was in a size 4 regular, and either a 4p or sometimes a 2p in petites.

Less than ten years ago, I was in a size 2 regular, and either a 4p or sometimes a 2p in petites.

In the past 3-4 years, a size 0 regular can sometimes fit, but often often just don't work because I'm swimming in them. Size 0p is just about perfect.

Size 00p usually doesn't fit, and I don't think ever would, even if I lost more weight. The width is fine, but 00's seem to be cut shorter horizontally, for people with short waists/short rise/more delicate bone structure than my medium-frame. I've never seen a 00 in regular, but maybe that's where I shop?

Except for last year's weight gain, I have been fairly consistent in my weight and measurements throughout all this time. I still have a handful of items in my closet from years past. I have Banana Republic size 4 and size 2 pants from the past, that if you hold them up to the size 0s are identically sized.

So Banana Republic has definetly vanity sized very recently (last 3 years). So has Ann Taylor, which has become discouraging to me because I am swimming in their size 0p pants. It seems since launching AnnTaylor Loft they assume you will just go there if you don't have hips, which does work for me (I take a 0p there and they fit quite well) but the quality is just not the same.

Department stores have definetly also vanity-sized and it's quite depressing - in the past few months, I've had no luck at all. For example, I love the DKNY Soho jeans but they only go down to a size 2p, which is too big on me now. INC brand works but most of the other labels including Ralph Lauren (which used to be a standby fav of mine) are too big.

In GAP I'm in their smallest size, and sometimes that's too big. Tops are a little easier: I have recently discovered that their online petite tops XS do fit me - perfectly. So that's a relief. Their regular size XS are enormous on me. In Old Navy, I am shopping in the children's section now, size 14's.

At Jcrew I'm in their 0's and they run big on me so it'**** or miss. I have not tried their petites you can only order online and in past I had bad experience because the sizing is woefully inconsistent.

Someone mentioned that people are not only getting wider, but taller, and I totally agree that this is a major factor!! I'm only 5'0" and it's getting harder and harder to find clothes that fit me vertically. Very, very frustrating.

P.s. You asked about exact conversions:

When ordering online, I always ALWAYS check the size charts first, since sizing is all over the map and changes frequently enough you can't guarantee anymore that a size 2 that you ordered 6 months ago is still a size 2 if you're re-ordering.

At the stores I shop at (listed in previous post), in general a size 0 pant works out to around a 24-25 inch waist and 33-34 inch hips.

Which is exactly what a size 2 was over three years ago... and a size 4 over 10 years ago. :-(

Size 00 looks to be 23 inch waist and 32-33 inch hips. Which is probably why they never fit me right... my waist is closer to 25 inches even though my hips are only 33. Also as I mentioned the 00's will have a shorter rise than the 0's.