In 1951 the British were still enduring post-war austerity... counting the Depression, those measurements were taken after 20 years of almost constant low-level deprivation.

Whats ypour point? These figures were taken after 40yrs of food injected with artifical sugar so that the brain would still think the body is hungry and people would eat more than they need to

And how much is a stone?

A stone is 6.4 kilos, or 14 pounds.

I don't get why the shoe size is mentioned. Do people's feet "splay" to a bigger size if they get heavier or something?

Never mind, read the article. Didn't realize weight gain can actually change shoe size. Interesting.

9 * 14 + 10 = 136lbs Isnt that kinda fat for someone just over 5 feet tall?

Hell my freshmen year of high school I was 6'2" and 120 lbs, of course that was with an insane summer growth spurt and swimming 4hrs a day

then 9st +10=136
now 10st +3=143

difference of 7 pounds, is that really news worthy or was the first figure an extreme back then while the second figure is average today

That article was rather poorly written

That article was rather poorly written

All Daily Mail articles are poorly written.

The significant finding of this study isn't the weight gain, it's the change in proportions. This indicates that the distribution of weight has changed - 7lbs isn't much but 7 inches on the waist is.

I know that it's impolite to acknowledge this, but British and American women tend to be heavyset and pair shaped. This tendency becomes especially pronounced for women over 25.

Oh, the feet part is a bunch of crap. I've had the same shoe size since I was 12 or 13, and I weighed much less then. You would have to pack on about 100 pounds before it would affect your feet. And I get a little tired of hearing how this is such shocking, horrible news regarding our health. Am I wrong, or aren't people living longer than they were 60 years ago?

I think for most women their feet get bigger if they have kids and they kinda stay the same. Even if they don't let themselves get obese during the pregnancy.

"I think for most women their feet get bigger if they have kids and they kinda stay the same." Yes. I'm 7 1/2 months pregnant and my feet have gotten about 1/2 size larger. I'm not all puffy (yet)- my rings still slide off easily.

And, 143 pounds at only 5'2" isn't exactly petite- but I get the point about the ratios changing.

> A stone is 6.4 kilos, or 14 pounds.

OK— So speaking of weird metrics, how much is a "size"?

Rhetorical question. I've learned that when a woman tells a man "I used to be size N and now I'm size N minus X, what she really means is "I'm a budgy little chublette, but I used to be even fatter, and if you ever speak of this harshly I'll kill you and everything you everthing you ever loved."

Five decades in, I've never heard of a man describe his lust with "I like a woman who's a size ___."

What I want to know is what the hell are the clothing manufacturers doing with the sizes these days? My height and weight have not changed since high school (+/- a couple of years). My size has changed three times now.

I am not a prolific shopper, in fact, I hate shopping. And the more tedious they make it, the more I hate it. All I wanted the other day was black work pants. That's all. I went to three different stores and it was the same thing - swimming in my "usual" size, and diaper ass in the size one down. "What the hell do you people think we look like these days???" They've changed it again!!!!

What the hell is going on here?

well, i didn't see THAT before I posted.

I'd love to see a braod study like this of more post-war countries and what happened to them. Seems like the Japanese would be more likely to keep such data. In comparison with US, Europe, Australia... it might be interesting impact of the War and the change in technology and economies. Also the impact of the green revolution worldwide.

Perhaps a bit grandiose to look at just to find how people have changed proportions. I'd REALLY be curious to have the Australians included, to compare and contrast with US and the Brits...

What I want to know is what the hell are the clothing manufacturers doing with the sizes these days?

Agreed. I just wanna run in and buy what I need, not wait in line for 40 minutes so I can try on three different sizes, or even three different styles in the same size that all fit differently.

OK— So speaking of weird metrics, how much is a "size"?

This depends on body structure and muscle tone. I'm 5'3" and 120-125 lbs (depending on taco consumption and other factors in any given month), but I live the life of a desk jockey. So, below average weight, but a little squishy. If I lost 10 pounds and worked out, I'd probably lose two sizes. Someone 5'8" and 150 pounds might lose a half a size or a full size.

Valid point but this is really confusing to read with the British weights, clothing sizes, and shoe sizes.

Feebie: "What I want to know is what the hell are the clothing manufacturers doing with the sizes these days? My height and weight have not changed since high school (+/- a couple of years). My size has changed three times now."

The same thing is happening in men's clothing; you buy one brand of jeans in a certain size one day or at one store, and then the next or at a different store, those same jeans in the same size don't fit. I have a theory about that: I think the manufacture of most clothing items has become commodified. Whenever a label needs a batch of jeans made, they go with whichever sweatshop in Guatemala bids lowest that day. The next week, when they need another batch, a sweatshop in El Salvador bids lowest and gets the job. Of course, none of the sweatshops has the vaguest notion of standarized sizes or cuts; they just do it whichever way they know how. So you wind up with a specific label item in a theoretically specific size, which actually varies all over the place, depending on where that batch came from.

I'd like to know if the 1951 measurements were with or without a corset. Most 1950s women wore a corset ... .

Yes, UK shoe sizes are about two sizes smaller than American shoe sizes - see this comparison chart:
http://www.heeldirectory.com/shoesizes.html

Indeed, the Daily Mail is not known for being rigorous ... .

I think MonicaP probably nailed one cause for the difference between the relatively small weight gain and the large change in measurement ratios. Modern convenience and women working desk jobs means our core is just not as strong as it was in the 50's. If we don't keep those abs working, they get squishy and stuff starts to stick out -- even if there isn't that much extra fat there.

Only anecdotal, but I can work on the elliptical like crazy and my buns look great and I can lose the bit of extra fat that plagues me from time to time. However, when I was doing the same quantity of a kickboxing type workout, I could lose a similar amount of fat, but my waist size dropped much faster.

While I agree with Taubes that our eating habits are the cause of obesity and its side-effects, I still see, at least, esthetic value in maintaining good muscle tone all over one's body -- even if it means consuming a few extra calories to compensate.

Thanks Amy. I just used your mall to click through to Amazon.ca and ordered this, your book and a new copy of Taubes (I've already "leant" out two copies). I hope clicking through this way helps your mall. If not, maybe you can add a seperate link for your Canadian readers?

Since I have had a lot of time on my hands I have been helping my dad - that is physical labor. And my mom has been feeding us so good meals and a lot more meat (I don't buy meat in general). I figured I would have lost weight. Nope...I gained 17lbs! My arms and legs are huge...and I have more belly. I certainly understand the arms and legs...but I just don't see how I am managing to do it. I am certainly doing the physical labor of the past but I am much bigger.

Go Amy Alkon! Low-carb is the the only way to lose weight and keep it off. Another big caveat - you need to do alot of exercise too!