Absolutely Nothing To Do With Quilting.

I've been running.

Not the kind of crazy busy "running" that we all do in our hectic lives, I'm talking about the kind of running that involves special shoes and sweat. I know, I know, for those of you that know me well, it's hard to believe that I drag my behind out of bed early in the morning to EXERCISE. My behind or more accurately the size of my behind is precisely what spurred me into action.

I realize that I'm not exactly a candidate for the Biggest Loser, but in my mind size is relative. I fondly remember being a size 6 and way before that a size 4. My wedding dress was a size 2. In the bottom drawer of my dresser are a stack of size 8 pants that I would like to be wearing. Hanging in my closet are my size 10's and if the truth be told, they were getting snug. Something had to be done.

Cutting out wine during the week, taking the candy off my desk and controlling my carbs helped. To make a real difference I knew that I would have to move more. My husband offered to run with me, amazing because he is athletic and I'm a rank beginner in the running world - and I mostly run downhill. We've also been down this path before. Read my entry from September 2009.http://www.karensayssew.blogspot.com/2009/09/run-run-as-fast-as-you-can.html

Naturally my renewed interest in the sport required new equipment. Shoes were not a problem. My husband had me invest in great running shoes in 2009 and they are still like new. After my experience with yoga pants, shopping for running shorts was an absolute requirement in my book! THAT is what this post is really about.

We have already covered the actual size of my behind, so could someone please explain to me why I wear a size LARGE in "active wear"? Really? A size LARGE? Is that some sick stick thin designers idea of a joke? Is that Nike/Reebok/Addis idea of encouraging you to exercise more? According to the internet the average American woman wears a size 14. Average is two sizes larger than I am right now and I wear a large? Are they assuming those woman will NEVER want athletic wear?

 

I think that we have all experienced "the more you pay the smaller your size" when dress shopping. Now that I've dropped a few pounds I'm a size 8 over $200 and I'm pretty sure I could be a 6 if I had reason and the means to shop Nordstrom's Special Occasion department. Perhaps that principle applies here? I'm not overjoyed at spending a bundle on something that I plan to only sweat in on a regular basis, but "cheap" shorts in Athletic wear are in the $24 range, they come in basic black like a model T and if you are lucky you get a pocket just large enough to hold your car key.

 

I prefer the tight body hugging shorts to the baggy gym shorts style. I have good reason for my preference, one that my husband doesn't understand, but those of you whom have thighs that rub together won't question. I'm looking at capri length or at the very least bike shorts because my thighs are not yet ready for a public appearance.  Which begs the question of why LARGE active wear is available in mini short length?  

Running everyday requires a whole wardrobe of LARGE shorts and that "LARGE" tag irritates me every time I shop for them.  To solve the problem I ordered a pair of shorts off the internet. Good price, free shipping. When they arrived the tags were in Spanish. I don't feel any better knowing that my butt is "Grande".