Sunday, December 02, 2012
Gee, that sounds like breast reduction surgery. No, that’s not needed here. It has nothing to do with weight either. It’s my TRIVIA SCORE! 75% for November and 70% since I started. I started VERY badly.
I wrote awhile ago that although it made me aware of how much I didn’t know, I was determined to keep at it without using an “open book” or “open Google”(not that there’s anything wrong with that as Seinfeld would say).
I’m very stubborn and tenacious so I just started reading more articles and taking some quizzes. I’ve learned a lot from reading blogs too, not just the featured ones, but those written by friends and friends of friends. It is amazing how one person’s post leads to another and adds to my base of knowledge. I’ve become aware of some inspirational personal stories too. We’ve taken some different routes on the same journey. See you all at the finish line!
Friday, November 30, 2012
That’s FALL, not fail. Not a nutrition backslide, a hard fall on my knee and elbow. Last night leaving an event at my granddaughter’s school, we were walking in the dark down the long driveway when I slipped off the steeply banked blacktop and landed in the gravel. I fell hard on my elbow and knee, the knee that’s just had 3 months of rehab. This is why I never run in the dark. Obviously I shouldn’t even walk in the dark.
Once home I cleaned up the bleeding knee, iced both knee and elbow and complained a lot. The good news, I suppose, is that I didn’t break anything. What lousy timing! I planned to run a 5K on Saturday.
So I don’t have a lot of words this morning, not printable words anyway. I’m mad at myself for not watching where I was going, not paying attention etc. etc. Once again I’ve injured myself and once again I didn’t do it running, playing any sport or working out, just being clumsy.
Be careful out there!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
This is related to my blog entry yesterday. I love the old TV shows, the ones that remind me of my youth. Today I woke up at 5 am, a bit too early for me. While I drank my coffee, I turned on the TV to find an episode of “I Love Lucy.”
Remember Ethel? - Lucy’s sidekick? Ethel’s weight was a running joke on the show. Looking at her today, she’s positively slim!
Lucy was followed this morning by “The Honeymooners” – the classic spin-off from the Jackie Gleason show. Now Jackie was definitely obese. Back then though, his weight was considered so extreme it was always mentioned in the scripts. Being paired with the extremely slim Art Carney emphasized the theme. According to his biography at 5’10” he occasionally dieted to 180 lbs, but his top weight “approached 300.” He would be a good candidate for SP, but he also would have lots of company. He wouldn’t even be our “biggest loser.”
Neither of these actors would even get a second glance on the street today, at least not for their weight.
Checking further, I learned that Lucille Ball was reported to be a “perfect size 12” according to her studio. That’s equivalent to a size 4 in today’s world of vanity sizing. She was 5’7” with weight varying from 115 to 132 lbs. Ethel (Vivian Vance) was 10-15 lbs heavier. It isn’t true that she was contractually obligated to maintain that difference.
Two recent articles (msn and huffington post) report that seeing larger people make us feel better about ourselves. The fashion industry entices us to buy more by slapping smaller sizes on ever larger clothes.
I believe in a positive self image. I have many qualities of which I’m proud that have nothing to do with my height, weight, body type or degree of attractiveness. However, Lucy, Ethel and I would have worn the same size. Calling me a size 6 instead of a 12-14 is just an attempt at false self esteem.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
This blog began as a description of my unsuccessful search for a long holiday skirt. I decided I could make one inexpensively like I used to do long ago.
On the Simplicity website I found this post from a frustrated customer.
”I got a fantastic pattern, Simplicity/Threads 2758. I was in the middle of cutting out the pattern when I discover it’s not true to size! I just found out that it’s 4 sizes off, that my normal pant size of 14/16 is actually a 20/22 or more in Simplicity sizing.”
For some time I’ve considered the effect of vanity sizing in masking the supersizing of society. Personally, sizing creep did me no favors as it allowed me to gain 30 pounds while continuing to wear the same size. This is important to the fashion industry. Making women feel good about themselves allows companies to pad their bottom line as we continue to pad our own bottoms.
Suddenly, here’s a company bringing us a dose of reality. They haven’t changed their sizing. The measurements/size are the same as they were in 1960.
What does this mean for me? As I shop off-the-rack I can now buy a size 6 instead of the size 10 I wore in 1968. Even after my weight loss I’m still 13 lbs more than back in 68. Checking the average measurements for a size 6, I find 36-28-38. Yep that’s me all right – a size 6.
Now what if I decide to make myself a new dress or skirt. What if, like the poster on the website, I buy a size 6 pattern. The measurements there: 30 ½ -23-32 ½. Oops!
The sizes of off-the-rack clothes and pattern sizes were once exactly the same. I bought size 10 dresses and made a few of my own from size 10 patterns.
The fashion industry has research to prove that women are more likely to buy if there’s a smaller size attached. Sizing creep has produced some ridiculous results. Since the old size 8 is now a size 0, the very small woman, who would have worn the old size 6, now is called size 00. If this continues, how many zeros can they fit on a size tag? What’s the alternative, negative numbers?
Still, I don’t understand the disconnect? Are women who make their own clothes less vain than those who don’t? Are they willing to buy patterns according to their measurements because the final product won’t have a size tag in it anyway?
One solution would be to forget arbitrary sizing and just sell womens’ clothes based on actual measurements. Efficient yes, but how many women want to sort through a rack where their actual waist or hip size is prominently displayed?
Finally, for the record I would have to buy a pattern size 14 to match the measurements of an off-the-rack size 6. Much as I hate sizing creep and believe it fosters false self esteem and is adding to our obesity problem, there’s some vanity in me too. I admit, I’d rather call myself a 6. However, I must keep reminding myself that it’s not real. It’s just a consequence of the supersizing of America.
Get An Email Alert Each Time BROOKLYN_BORN Posts