If you ask me, I'd tell you instead that it is my midsection that is my biggest troublezone. That's what it feels like, at any rate. It is true I'm short from bra band to natural waist, and waist to hip bone. But, I am short ALL OVER.
Proportionately speaking, when I do these measurement exercises, I am actually quite even in every "zone" except for from neck/shoulder line to bra! This is where I am - objectively and measureably - shortest. It is what makes even petite tops sometimes be too low or long in the straps.
It is true when I gain weight I end up getting those waddly under arm bits, and I lose my collar bones. But it's my midsection that bothers me most. I do have to wonder how much of this is "mental" ... err, subjective ... if you know what I mean?
Or, if not in my mind only, how much of it is postpartum stuff that simply never went away (and won't - i.e., stretched out skin and muscle)? If you are really short, and you produce a baby same size as any average or tall sized person, it seems logical said baby could potentially and irrevocably stretch your gut out all over the place, never to quite ping back into place again. In other words, it's not fat it's skin and lax muscles (heck maybe even warped ribs and such... I remember DD16 kicking me in the ribs a lot!!!)
Subjectively, I also tend to think my legs look really stubby.... in fact, "Stub" is a frequent nickname in my family tree... it runs in the family, to have short legs.... but when I did these measurement exercises, the reality is my legs are a 1 inch longer than my upper body. So I am not simply proportionate - they are - a whopping(!) 1 inch longer. Hee hee. Yet, I seem to have this mental block that sees my legs as stubby. Is this because my mind is so used to seeing leggy models? I do have to wonder.
This is a long-winded way to say that the measurement exercises were very helpful to me because they made me challenge my subjective view of myself, with objective measurements. What we see, is not necessarily the reality. We filter.
