Celebrity "sizes" in magazines

Ziegfeldgirl27

Right now I am reading Heat magazine which states that Kim Kardashian has gone up from a size eight to a size twelve. Now, I am a size eight, I weigh eight stone, have no boobs, have no hips - so how on earth do they think Kim was ever an eight?

It also says that her weight back in March was 7 stone 2lb. There is no way she could ever be that light, as I said I have no "assets" and am very thin but I am eight stone.

I just find it incredible that people may take this as the truth and think they are the true sizes...unless of course they are referring to american sizing, but even then they must be lying somewhere about their weight.

Pippy1976

I work in media. Everyone, please be aware, what you're reading / watching is never 100% true especially in the world of celebrity.

mood

Firstly American sizes are different than UK sizes which is what we go by here. So when they say Kim Kardashian is a size 8 they possible mean a US 8 which is a UK 10.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/clothing_womens.htm

Secondly a lot depends on height.

I once saw a magazine article saying 'guess who is size 8' out of a photo of 5 women. They were all slim and healthy looking but quite different shapes and sizes. I turned out they were all size 8.

Ziegfeldgirl27

The sizes I can understand, but the weight? There is absolutely no way she could ever weigh 7 stone.

mood

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

The sizes I can understand, but the weight? There is absolutely no way she could ever weigh 7 stone.

What height is she? It's is also important to bear in mind the muscle is heavier than fat so someone smaller in measurement could be heavier than someone bigger even if they are the same height.

Pippy1976

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

The sizes I can understand, but the weight? There is absolutely no way she could ever weigh 7 stone.

Does this matter?

Valentina

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

Right now I am reading Heat magazine which states that Kim Kardashian has gone up from a size eight to a size twelve. Now, I am a size eight, I weigh eight stone, have no boobs, have no hips - so how on earth do they think Kim was ever an eight?

It also says that her weight back in March was 7 stone 2lb. There is no way she could ever be that light, as I said I have no "assets" and am very thin but I am eight stone.

I just find it incredible that people may take this as the truth and think they are the true sizes...unless of course they are referring to american sizing, but even then they must be lying somewhere about their weight.

I would have thought they meant KK was a US8 which is closer to a UK12.

Anyway like everyone has already said, take these articles with a pinch of salt. I read yesterday that KK has put on 2 stone while dating Kanye, then today she had lost 6lbs?? :rolleyes:

Emeraldy Pebbles

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

Right now I am reading Heat magazine which states that Kim Kardashian has gone up from a size eight to a size twelve. Now, I am a size eight, I weigh eight stone, have no boobs, have no hips - so how on earth do they think Kim was ever an eight?

You have different body shapes, her boobs could fool you into thinking she was a bigger size than she actually was. I could have easily see her having a size 8 waist.

Plus, Kim is short, only 5'2", a size 8 won't look as tiny on her as someone taller. How tall are you, OP?

Faith

I remember seeing a picture of Rachel Bilson a few years ago. Some Irish girls had bumped into her and taken a picture with her. All the Irish girls were size 8 or 10 - slim, in other words. It was SHOCKING how small Rachel Bilson was next to them. She was the size of a 10 year old child, perhaps. So I never underestimate just how slight celebrities may be.

Ziegfeldgirl27

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

How tall are you, OP?

5'4

Emeraldy Pebbles

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

5'4

So, two inches taller than Kim, which does make a big difference. I can guarantee that Kim's boobs and bum give the impression of her being a bigger size too. I would well believe she was a size 8. I bet she'd be tiny in person.

Why does it bother you so much anyway, even if she is bigger?

Ziegfeldgirl27

It doesn't bother me in the slightest, just something I noticed in a magazine and thought I might post about it.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

It doesn't bother me in the slightest, just something I noticed in a magazine and thought I might post about it.

Well, you and she can have different body shapes and both still be size 8. Celebs tend to be titchy in person.

cloud_dancer

I read in a mag last week that kk had a hip measurement of 40. That's way over a size 12. I'm 5"5', an 8 on top and a size 10 on the bottom. My hips are 37 which is quite big for a size 10 so I'd put kim close to a size 14.

I'm quite skinny apart from my booty and I'm 8st 12 so can't see how kim would be 7 stone. She'd have to be 5" even to be that light. The reason why this annoys me is because young girls read it and think it's real. They think thin means 7 stone.

Stench Blossoms

A friend of mine met Beyonce. She couldn't get over how small she was. She reckoned she was a size 4 or 6. She's portrayed as 'curvy' and she is curvy but a lot of people perceive that as 'bigger'. Which I know I'm guilty of and so is my friend.

So maybe Kim is actually quite small?

cloud_dancer

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

A friend of mine met Beyonce. She couldn't get over how small she was. She reckoned she was a size 4 or 6. She's portrayed as 'curvy' and she is curvy but a lot of people perceive that as 'bigger'. Which I know I'm guilty of and so is my friend.

So maybe Kim is actually quite small?

True she could be small and the media have posted conflicting information on her weight and size.

Klaas

Κardashian has small stature. But as Stench Blossoms correctly mentioned above, she's "curvy" and many people think that she's big. That's wrong
Also the magazines always lie about weight or height of celebrities. That's true too.:p

ncmc

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

A friend of mine met Beyonce. She couldn't get over how small she was. She reckoned she was a size 4 or 6. She's portrayed as 'curvy' and she is curvy but a lot of people perceive that as 'bigger'. Which I know I'm guilty of and so is my friend.

So maybe Kim is actually quite small?

Was just about to post this exact same thing! I know a girl who works in a shop that Beyonce went into a couple of years ago when she was in Dublin for a gig. The girl I know could not get over how tiny Beyonce was, and as Stench Blossom says, Beyonce is hailed as being one of the ‘curvy’ celebrities.

Wasn’t it rumoured that Victoria Beckham had the same measurements as a 9 year old boy? She looks slim in pictures, but if that’s true then she must look like Skelator in real life.

I would think KK is tiny, she is only 5ft2 and I’d say her hips and boobs aren’t as big in real life as they look in pics. I think they only look big because the rest of her is so tiny. I would have no trouble believing that she is a size 8, and that’s a UK size 8.

As a previous poster says, don’t underestimate how tiny celebrities are in reality.

tinkerbell

Kim K regularly sells her old clothes on ebay (under the name kimsaprincess). They are either all XS or a US size 2-4 (which is a 6-8 UK). Anybody who follows Kim knows that the girl cannot dress properly when it comes to fit - she squeezes into things that are way too small for her. So take the size 2-4 with a pinch of salt because there is no way she is that size - especially with that giant a$$ on her.

Ziegfeldgirl27

tinkerbell wrote: »

Anybody who follows Kim knows that the girl cannot dress properly when it comes to fit - she squeezes into things that are way too small for her. So take the size 2-4 with a pinch of salt because there is no way she is that size - especially with that giant a$$ on her.

I don't follow her but I cannot figure out how she could squeeze those giant hips into size 8s...especially if it is 44 inches as someone else said :eek:
So I guess by this thread the general feeling is that it's sort of an illusion the photos of her in the media? She is slim ok but you could still have big hips and boobs. I just don't know how you fit them into a size eight, for me I have neither! I can still fit into kids clothes!

tinkerbell

^ You can also see the outline of Spanx in a lot of the dresses that she wears so that could contribute to the squeezing into things!

miss no stars

Eh, you don't have to be straight up straight down to be a size 8. I'm just shy of 5'6, weight 8 stone 5lb and am curvy in the true sense of the word. Although my measurements are 36"-26"-36", in dresses what actually fits is a 6-8, in trousers and tops an 8-10 depending on the cut. So the theoretical measurements for sizes are all fine and well, but once you go outside of a straight up straight down figure, all it really comes down to is what generally fits when you put it on (I'm not saying what goes on fits, but what actually fits)

Emeraldy Pebbles

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

I don't follow her but I cannot figure out how she could squeeze those giant hips into size 8s...especially if it is 44 inches as someone else said :eek:
So I guess by this thread the general feeling is that it's sort of an illusion the photos of her in the media? She is slim ok but you could still have big hips and boobs. I just don't know how you fit them into a size eight, for me I have neither! I can still fit into kids clothes!

Someone said she had 40 inch hips, I doubt that.

Most people seem to be saying she likely is 8 or 8-10, and probably looks smaller in person.

miss no stars wrote: »

Eh, you don't have to be straight up straight down to be a size 8.

Exactly, you can be curvy at small sizes.

Lia_lia

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

A friend of mine met Beyonce. She couldn't get over how small she was. She reckoned she was a size 4 or 6.

Yeah 2 of my friends (who are quite slim) met her and got a picture with her and they look huuuuge next to her! She's tinsy!


I only ever read "celeb" mags in the doctor/dentist waiting room. Dunno who any of the people in them are really. Every feckin time they have stories about celebs weight/dieting/blah blah WHO CARRRESS! I mean really, who cares.

Magenta

I can also say that all this stuff about Gaga gaining 25lb is BS. I was about 15 feet away from her at her concert and she looked the exact same as she did when I saw her in 2010. I think the Daily Mail photoshopped some pics to make her look huge and Gaga just went with it to appeal to the "real women have curves"/"born this way" crowd.

lazy girl

yeah I agree no way KK is or could be that small with the boobs and bum!!

Valentina

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Someone said she had 40 inch hips, I doubt that.

KK has posted on her own blog that her measurements are 34-26-39. Her waist may be tiny but she must be bet into the smaller sizes to fit them over her hips. My hips are smaller than Kim's but there's no way I could squeeze into a UK8.

Anyway like someone else said on this thread, I don't really care is she's an 8 or an 18 - I just think it sends out a confusing message to anyone impressionable when they are shown a picture of someone, say, Lauren Goodger and are told she is a size 10 when she has to be nearer a 14. It's as bad as being shown a severely underweight model and being told she is a healthy size 6/8/whatever.

Emeraldy Pebbles

I'd imagine declaring that KK has a huge ass and thighs like a few people on this thread have done would be more damaging, TBH.

cloud_dancer

:pac:

Valentina wrote: »

KK has posted on her own blog that her measurements are 34-26-39. Her waist may be tiny but she must be bet into the smaller sizes to fit them over her hips. My hips are smaller than Kim's but there's no way I could squeeze into a UK8.

Anyway like someone else said on this thread, I don't really care is she's an 8 or an 18 - I just think it sends out a confusing message to anyone impressionable when they are shown a picture of someone, say, Lauren Goodger and are told she is a size 10 when she has to be nearer a 14. It's as bad as being shown a severely underweight model and being told she is a healthy size 6/8/whatever.

I think Kim has a great body and love her curves but she aint a size 8. Like you Valentina I've smaller hips but similar proportions to Kim overall 32D-26-37 and I do well to squeeze into a size 8 especially in jeans or very fitted dresses. Mostly I can't get my boobs/bum/hips into an 8 and I wear a 10 Kim is a 34DD cup size so I imagine it would be tough to squeeze those bad boys into a size 8!

It doesn't matter what size she is because she looks great but it's misleading when you are told a celeb is a smaller size when they are clearly not. To use Valentina's example, Lauren Goodger. Someone who is a genuine slim size 10 could see all the things written about Lauren being fat (not that she is fat) and think that a size 10 must be big and they need to lose weight. I know most of us can see through this but lot of girls/women are very susceptible to suggestion especially if they already have body hangups. There’s an obsession with celebrity weight and thinness among young girls. Things are getting distorted and what used to be considered very skinny is now a normal size, what used to be considered normal is now "curvy". As someone that struggled with eating/body image issues when I was younger this kind of stuff annoys me.


Even men nowadays are being conditioned to think tiny weights are normal. When I first met my ex he thought I must weigh about 7 stone. He thought that was what a 5'5" healthy woman should weigh and was very surprised when I told him my weight (he was a big guy himself). On several occasions we watched Supersize vs Superskinny and he didn't see anything wrong with the superskinny and compared their size to actresses he liked. He thought they looked to be a healthy weight. Kim being labelled in the media as one of the bigger celebs and then stating she’s a size 8 is just sending the wrong message to people. Rant over! :pac:

Pippy1976

cloud_dancer wrote: »

:pac:

Rant over! :pac:

I think this thread should be over!

To reiterate what everyone is saying, what you read / see in magazines is never a true representation.

EDIT: to spend this amount of internet space discussing clueless 'celebrities' of the KK ilk is a MAJOR waste of everyone's time. She has nothing constructive or positive to say and is a puppet on E! TV's TV take-over!! Ok, rant over!! (p.s. the Kardashian's show is entirely scripted by the way...)

rainbow kirby

cloud_dancer wrote: »

Kim is a 34DD cup size so I imagine it would be tough to squeeze those bad boys into a size 8!

Very few celebrities will ever admit to being larger than a DD because Americans have a weird phobia of the bra alphabet beyond the letter D. If she's a size 8 in general, it's much more likely that 34DD is absolute rubbish. Most women who are a size 8 take a 26-30 band.

Faith

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Very few celebrities will ever admit to being larger than a DD because Americans have a weird phobia of the bra alphabet beyond the letter D. If she's a size 8 in general, it's much more likely that 34DD is absolute rubbish. Most women who are a size 8 take a 26-30 band.

Yeah, I'm a 34DD and I'm a size 12. That being said, my size 8 friend does wear a 34 or 36 band and she's not oddly sized or anything.

I have a related but probably stupid question, but it's been bugging me for ages. When people give their measurements, eg 36-34-36, does the bust measurement related to their bra band size, or their bust at the widest part? Like I said, I'm a 34DD, but my bust at the widest part is about 39/40 inches total. So would I say I'm 34-xx-xx or 40-xx-xx?

cloud_dancer

Faith wrote: »

Yeah, I'm a 34DD and I'm a size 12. That being said, my size 8 friend does wear a 34 or 36 band and she's not oddly sized or anything.

I have a related but probably stupid question, but it's been bugging me for ages. When people give their measurements, eg 36-34-36, does the bust measurement related to their bra band size, or their bust at the widest part? Like I said, I'm a 34DD, but my bust at the widest part is about 39/40 inches total. So would I say I'm 34-xx-xx or 40-xx-xx?

Your friend is probably a 30/32 and a much bigger cup size than she thinks. Most women are wearing the wrong bra size. I thought I was a 34B/C. My friend got implants and told me she was a 34C. Now hers are massive compared to mine and she's a bigger build too. We both got measured at some girly event doing bra's, I'm a 32D and she's a 36DD. I always thought a D cup = big boobs but not if it's a D on a slight frame. It's best to get properly fitted by a decent bra place as the traditional ways of measuring people don't necessary give the best fit. I've never had better fitting bra's in my life!

You would say you are a 40-xx-xx. It's the bust at the widest part.

Back to KK yes I do think it makes sense that she's smaller band size and much larger than a DD. A 34DD would struggle to fit into an 8. Usually a size 8 in clothes is 32in at the widest part.

Lia_lia

Yeah I'm a size 8 and I'm a 34 band. But I'm tall so I'm a bit broader I guess..

ItAintMeBabe

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

A friend of mine met Beyonce. She couldn't get over how small she was. She reckoned she was a size 4 or 6. She's portrayed as 'curvy' and she is curvy but a lot of people perceive that as 'bigger'. Which I know I'm guilty of and so is my friend.

So maybe Kim is actually quite small?

I met Beyonce myself in july 2011, what I thought was that she had this tiny little waist but definitely had curves all over. She had a big bum and boobs for sure, now it was announced a few weeks later that she was pregnant so that could have been something to do with it Also she has the most beautifully clear skin I have ever seen!!