This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing!
I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
This is, to be clear, a sincere question - not a veiled argument against OP or anything! It seems like there are probably some structural or psychological or market forces stopping that from happening and I'd love to understand them. Same with the "womens clothes have no pockets" thing!
>Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
Because
- in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine. Some might fit slightly better or worse, but unless you have very special body shape (and even extreme thick/overweight/tall/short are covered by niche brands) you can get in any clothes store and get plenty of clothes to wear
- some random brand making something that fits better doesn't mean any sizeable consumer percentage is going to buy it. First because see above, and also because a lot of clothes purchases are about brand and fashion and status signalling, not mere fit.
- if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only". Obviously brands for thicker and even obese people also exist, but they're seen as a brand of need, not a brand you'd be proud having to wear
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only"
The elephants in the room from the raw data is it is very clear some brands do not want average middle aged women wearing their products. Anthropology seems to be the most clear about this in that they have a literal gap between their standard and plus-sized ranges that excludes the adult median woman.
Now some brands might do that out of snobishness, but I expect there is a feedback loop here:
1) Young, attractive women want to make fashion choices that signal they are young, attractive women.
2) They buy from fashion lines that don't fit average adult women.
3) Average adult women detect that the fashionable choice is these brands and feel left out, because a fair number of them would also like to be young and attractive again. And a small but significant fraction feel really left out if some clothing brand calls them a size 20 waist / fat / shaped like a rectangle. Clothing brands detect this in their customer studies and respond appropriately.
4) People who just want clothes buy from H&M or wherever and don't write articles about how hard it is to fit clothes.
"Women" isn't really a homogeneous category when it comes to clothing, there is ongoing fierce competition between lots of different sub-groups of the female population to signal lots of different things. Men have it a bit easier because there is basically a 4-quadrant choice between upper & lower class, formal & casual with a lot of intricacy for people who care a lot about what brand of black leather shoe they own. Young girls are closer to men in that they aren't really trying to signal anything at that age, so clothing fits are a lot easier to manage.
> Clothing brands detect this in their customer studies and respond appropriately.
Respond how?
> lots of different sub-groups of the female population to signal lots of different things
Signal what?
> you can get in any clothes store and get plenty of clothes to wear
"Getting into the clothes" is a low bar. I can get into this brown paper bag. Comfort is underrated.
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".
Heh I think mens sizing signals the opposite: too skinny = insufficiently masculine.
Its only a problem for online shopping. In store you can simply grab multiple sizes and see which one fits best. Many online stores try to give multiple measurements of the clothes but even then it's extremely difficult to predict how it will look on you.
Online shoppers seem to solve this issue by just buying multiple items and returning the ones that don't fit. After which the retailer throws these returns in the bin.
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".
This is how many brands originally blow up and grow famous. Especially in Asia.
You make clothing in sizes only extremely slim people can wear.
This is an extremely popular brand that specifically does this, and it's hardly the only one:
In the "THe VILLaIN aRC oF VANiTY SiZINg" section, vanity sizing is framed as marketing strategy which is successful because of the psychology around that - linking out to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10577... for more detail.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time the most profitable marketing strategy is unrelated to aligning with what's optimal for the consumer.
Translating the confusing science speak, basically:
Appearance self-esteem takes a hit when they don't fit in a size. They take it out on the clothes: "I hate their stuff, they suck." They buy more of other stuff to compensate for the hit, whether non-sized accessories (I am pretty) or book/tech (I am smart even if I don't fit).
People confident in their appearance are immune to the effect, and simply think it's sized wrong or runs small.
I am genuinely curious as to which words in the cited are 'confusing science speak' in your view.
Having read the article, I can't venture a guess without feeling condescending...non-conforming? Compensatory?
Legitimately confused.
They use precise but indirect terminology e.g., "heightened level of appearance self-esteem" rather than "confident in their appearance".
Indirect phrasing e.g., "they respond more favorably to products that can help to repair their damaged appearance self-esteem" rather than something direct and easy to understand like "they feel bad that they don't fit, so they end up buying other things like makeup/jewelry to feel better about their appearance".
Maybe it's me, but only the first quote seems cumbersome, and wasn't very cumbersome in the article when I read it in context.
”I had no issues with complex sentence structure, therefore the whole planet is fluent in english and college-level literate”
Simpler language is an accessibility issue
I think they read the full paper rather than the snippets and agree most couldn't tell you what Cronbach's alpha is, how ANOVA works, or otherwise accurately interpret the meaning of the results sections in a casual read through. One can grab the full paper on resources such as Anna's Archive if they don't have access via a university or such.
Of course, the trick (once you know) is you don't need a comment summarizing it for you. The abstract is alright in a pinch, but the "General Discussion" in psychology papers is the equivalent of "Conclusion" and aims to discuss the results directly. It's still a bit verbose... but the language should at least be very familiar in comparison.
Of course education could help about this and other psychologically manipulative tactics by corps but such kind of education is heavily frowned upon for being seeing as anti-capitalist and (more propagandistic) as un-american, so there is zero of such kind of education.
Thankfully, for most people on Earth, the prospect of seeming "Un-American" is not relevant. It's also not a problem to argue against free-market economies - see Austria's second biggest city (Graz), which has an elected mayor from the communist party.
These seem like uniquely U.S.-American issues.
I mourn for the retreat of critical reasoning skills from modern U.S. early education systems.
That's what sizing guides are theoretically for, if you add more sizing systems it gets even more confusing. I don't think the issue is as bad as the post portrays it though. Its true that sizes can be all over the place but like I am size small woman's and if I buy small most of the time it will fit or at least somewhat fit. I am not a standard model size either as I need things that are for more hourglass figure rather than straight but that just requires being selective about which styles to buy. A medium also usually fits if I need something looser. I double check the reviews if its online or try it on in person and as long as its not something that requires precise measurements its usually fine. For things like jeans I shop in person and try things on from a few sizes or just know approximate size I am or rely on reviews. Many items these days are stretchy and even when they don't fit perfectly they are wearable or you can return them, its not that complicated. I do only shop a few brands or from in person stores or I can often approximate sizing from how big something looks or by looking at review photos.
The pockets thing is similar, not having pockets is annoying but its not that big of a deal. I rather buy something cute without pockets than search for something with some. If it has them great, if it doesnt oh well I will just use my purse. Barely anything fits in pockets anyways and I have a feeling other women feel similarly which is why many of us buy things whether or not they have pockets.
I'm pretty sure everyone who cares about getting a good fit (and isn't simply trying the clothes on in person) is looking at measurements, which you can usually find for any half-decent vendor (though it may take some poking around their site). The best have it per-garment (or per-cut), less-good but usually still alright is having a guide to the measurements they base their sizing off of.
Even guys can't really get away with just "Small, Medium, Large" if they want a decent fit that they can predict from just the label. Modifiers for the cut become necessary (regular, slim, relaxed, extra-slim, that kind of thing). And that's for clothes that are pretty forgiving on the fit, like knits...
Women's clothes are even trickier. It's basically impossible to boil them down to one or even two size metrics or labels unless you're relying on a shitload of stretch in every other part of the garment, which is something that usually only very bad garments do (think: Temu). Women's proportions are also far more variable. Shoulder-bust-waist-hip often sees some pretty wild differences, like two women will match on a couple of those measurements and be way far apart on the others. Then you've got height to worry about. Dudes can be similarly far outside the norm of distributions for the relations between their key measurements, but it's not as common—most of us have it relatively easy.
Looking at the actual measurements, though, I've found to be very reliable. I buy almost all my clothes on eBay and directly from brands on their websites, with great success, because I know both my own key measurements, and the dimensions of clothes that fit me well (I have some notes, doesn't take a lot of data points to have enough to be pretty accurate). I've also ordered for my wife with a similar strategy, works well there, though you're way more likely to run into cases of "OK there are zero sizes of this garment that will work for you, just gotta give up on this one" because of the issue above.
Ironically, one area that both genders can have trouble with is crotch seam length, though typically on opposite sides of the garment — but in women’s clothing it’s often worse than men’s due to the spectrum of “extra high rise” to “extra low rise” that’s added to the mix in women’s clothing. Aligning with the hourglass-mostly point of the article, the most common is High Rise, which corresponds to the higher ‘resting point’ on the torso cylinder for a waistband when women have gained fat deposits in the usual rearward hourglass places (as otherwise the waistband sits at a severely sloped angle from back to front). For rectangle or triangle folks, you will rarely find Low Rise or Extra Low Rise that have the appropriately-shortened crotch seam. For spoon folks, you have to shop at shops that cater to spoon shape, because most major retailers only cater to one specific shape and stretch simply isn’t enough to compensate for the rectangular to spoon difference (as Lululemon discovered a decade ago or so). That’s because two women with upper leg circumference 30 may have hip sizes varying from 20 to 60, depending on which body type they have and where their fat deposits are — and the two ends of that spectrum do not indicate anorexia/obesity, either. Body shape and fat levels vary that widely under normal healthy circumstances. I envy men’s jeans for their (relative, but not zero) simplicity.
Now that is an interesting dimension (ha, ha) of this I hadn't yet appreciated. I'm used, as a dude of fortunately-normalish proportions and skinny-enough (but not actually skinny) size, to only looking at a single measurement for rise (crotch to waist, measured on the front of the garment) and getting a really good idea of what I'll be dealing with, just from that. From your description I think I've understood the issue you're highlighting, and yeah, that'd be an annoying extra factor to deal with (and I'm sure it's really hard to get two rise measurements out of anybody, just about ever).
You've got me thinking back to a particular brand and style of (not at all fancy) jeans my wife used to love, that they discontinued, and she's never quite found another that works for her as well. From how she described it, in hindsight, I bet this measurement is the key thing she's not managing to nail on her attempts to find a replacement. Wish she still had a pair, I'd go measure front- and back-rise on them so we'd know what to look for!
If only there was an Anna's Archive for retail clothing dissected into clothing patterns..
> Women's clothes are even trickier
Oh that explains why my wife spends so much time obsessing over clothes: trying clothes, buying/returning, buying others, etc. I'm sure a few others can relate.
And she's got a very normal BMI: not underweight, just plain in the middle (5'5" / 124 lbs: something like that) and a very hour-glassy/feminine shape, so many clothes are "made" to her shape/size/weight. I can't imagine what it'd be if she had uncommon "dimensions".
[delayed]
I wonder if understanding a particular brand's sizing drives up repeat purchases.
Yes. This is specifically a driver for having brand-specific sizing: knowing what size I am in Wooland Jade does nothing whatsoever to help me assess a potentially cheaper option in Uniqlo Whatever. It's the same lock-in effect as cloud APIs, only implemented through attributes instead. Imagine the chaos in the guitar market if the "bass" in "bass guitar" had up to +/-25% variation between guitar manufacturers — it would be a total nightmare trying to cross-shop guitars away from your current one, and lots of people would just end up glued to a brand so they don't have to do the hard work of assessing 'is this within +/-5% of the bass that fits me now'.
Yes but it’s multiple dimensions other than just waistline. e.g Some brands make boxier shirts and others use longer cuts.
Because “my style” prefers one over the other, I know when I buy from a certain brand so it’s going to fit on me better.
If if waistlines were standardized it wouldn’t really account for all the other measurements.
There's also different definitions of waistline size. Pant sizes "lie" because historically most pants sat further up your waist, now that many of them sit on your hips, they give you a measurement as if they were still sitting higher up so you can compare between the fits with the same number.
Really the only bulletproof solution here is to just go try them on in store and see which fits best.
I think the market opportunity can be a standard and eventually get labels to include your standard in addition to their traditional labeling.
Figure out the variables (like shape, inseam, width, whatever else) for each article of clothing. Then freely distribute this and begin to catalog popular items. You can crowdsource some of this. The idea is people will look up the clothes as per your scale.
Then after you index a lot of clothes, you can search by exact measurements and then you can hit up clothing manufacturers to use their propriety code in their marketing or promote their brands on your site.
As a bloke I think I can see one reason why - I buy sports kit the model looks good in but I won’t. Every damn time! Then end up buying again.
People buy heavy SUV when compact car would do, "dress for the job you want", "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", nationalistic fervor for your country getting more territory when even with the current one you don't know what to do, and so forth... Humans are an aspirational animal, and it is pretty easy to sell into that aspiration be it a ticket to Moon or a nice looking on the model jacket :)
To the commenter below:
Exactly. The societies where aspirations have been dampened or completely suppressed have been collectivistic and/or totalitaristic - USSR, North Korea, etc. - ie. where individual will is totally suppressed.
Mankind is aspirational when we are allowed to act as individuals. The silent majority has a different character because it's a simpler animal.
>"Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the others do not.
I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the incumbents. I would have figured the convenience of being able to store a device that people have their heads down in 95% of the time would be sufficient to supersede more vanity related motivations.
In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans where the pocket is well designed the phone still sticks out of the top and yet when I bend my knee it jams into my hip in a weird way or I cant sit down with it in my pocket. I am 5'1 so I may just be hitting some size limitations but carrying around a phone in a purse or sticking it into the waistband of tighter pants can be more comfortable than trying to use pockets.
Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.
I'm a big fan these days of a small crossbody bag (aka a sling bag). MY problem is that the pockets on my pants are too large and loose and I don't want to worry about things absently falling out when I sit.
Uniqlo makes a solid one for $25. It's light, comfortable, and unobtrusive. Admittedly, it's not ideal for all styles or situations, but I love that it's large enough for items that are definitely too large or uncomfortable for a pocket, like a book, small notebook, or an accessory.
I started bringing a crossbody bag and now I find I drag half the house everywhere like one of those every day carry people because why not, it's so easy to carry stuff compared to using pockets. Very useful to have a battery bank and cables with you.
In women's clothes, if you're trying to target Generic Woman, you often have to put deep pockets somewhere other than the front of thigh, because for various compositional reasons that area isn't reliably available across women's various body shapes. This is how we ended up with one of the coolest innovations in pockets since leggings: the side leg pocket. Everyone has a side leg. You can put a pocket there and it's perceptually irrelevant to people. Some of my skirts have pockets designed along these same lines that can hold an entire Nintendo Switch with controllers attached and it's effectively invisible if I'm sitting in a chair, because no one notices when my thighs are a bit thicker on one side. In leggings it's blindingly obvious that there's a phone there, but leggings are typically bodycon-tight to begin with, so I just view it as "yup, that's a phone pocket" when I even remember where I put my phone at all.
back waist pocket = mind blown
standard back pocket = disaster
I've ripped quite a few pants (2? 3?) getting up when the phone in the back pocket gets caught on something. And these were pants I considered "heavy duty".
side-leg pocket = ungainly
Knees and by extension thighs move more than hips, and so items in side pockets tend to bounce around and pull down the waistline, when normally they wouldn't in regular pockets.
In my opinion the best pocket is the breast pocket on jackets and heavier garments. I guess if I were a cop I'd prefer the shoulder holster.
If you think you can pull it off, I've become a strong proponent of blazers and sport coats. I call them "wearable purses for men".
For me, this is basically an evolution and refinement of what I guess I've always been trying to do. As a teen, I'd wear un- or partially-buttoned button-up shirts over my t-shirts. Later, zip hoodies as much of the year as I could get away with. I'd also be sad during this whole period when it'd get too warm and I couldn't get away with wearing a coat everywhere (and it got too warm for a hoodie, once I adopted those) and I'd have to go back to putting my stuff in my trouser pockets. That just sucks.
Now, I've gone to blazers and sport coats, which to me feel like a very similar idea but are wildly more practical[1] for most situations I find myself in, and most folks perceive them as looking a lot better, too.
I've found the heavier winter fabrics to be the easiest to pull off. Simple tweeds, or I've got this one really heavy but soft wool twill in grey-black that works great. Corduroy (there are wool corduroys, too!) covers fall really well, and can do for the cooler parts of spring, too.
Summer is trickier. Unlined Summer-weight wools can add effectively zero heat (and keep some of the sun off you!) but may look too formal, especially when nobody else is wearing a jacket of any kind. Really schlubby unstructured cotton, or a simple linen jacket can work without looking "too fancy", but they're a bit high-maintenance if you don't want them to look wrinkled to hell all the time. I haven't quite found what I'd call a perfect solution for me, here.
[1] Why are they more practical? A blazer or sport coat can usually dress pretty far up, and pretty far down, so has better situational range than a hoodie. I also find the pocket layout is just a ton better. My standard way to wear them is keys in left-hip, phone in right-hip, wallet in left-inner-breast. Generally, these leave tons of room in all three pockets concerned for cramming change or receipts or whatever, none of them are crowded. When traveling, I'll give a whole pocket to my passport, right-inner-breast if that one's big enough, or I might give that to my left hip if I don't need my keys (like when flying or taking a train). Sunglasses can go in the outer breast pocket. Hip pockets are usually big enough to temporarily cram leather or knit-wool gloves in, for the winter, when I need to take those off but don't have anywhere to put them, without overcrowding the pockets enough to cause a problem. I can double up my keys and a big ID/keycard in the left hip, when I need to go into the office, still not crammed tight or anything. The hip pockets are also great for those "pocket size" paperback books, and you can even fit stuff like Modern Library hardcovers in there as long as they're not super-thick volumes, especially the older editions that had smaller dimensions.
You might also appreciate research into the French accesory 'pochette', which is approximately like a women's clutch in the U.S. except without the gender-specifics (as translations 'folder' or 'case' suggest). Might have to site:fr a search in order to get ungendered results, though.
I appreciate the discussion. I'm always looking for ways to look better, although you wouldn't know it because I'm unkempt and wear old clothes. But fantasy me dresses really well.
> and keep some of the sun off you!
This has become really important to me in the last few years after I realized the impact sunlight has on people's skin (I always think of this [1] or just generally the people I know who don't care about sun exposure). I'm not sure what my ideal summer look will be since I look best in sporty clothing, but don't intend to spend long periods of time with large parts of my skin exposed to direct summer sunlight any longer. The face and back of the neck is the hardest part to fashionably keep safe.
So much this for consistency. I remember one particular bad occasion I went shopping for trousers in a store. I tried five, each had something wrong in relation with the size numbers.
First didn’t fit because it was too tight, so I tried one size larger. This one was even smaller than the previous one. So I tried an even bigger one which was only taller. Tried a bigger number now it was way too big. So for fun I tried one with a higher number which turned out to be smaller than the previous one.
When I asked the store assistant, they shrugged and said that was just reality and why you need to try every item individually. It has to do with how much “spare” cloth the seamstress takes when stitching the trousers together, if the original piece of cloth was even already cut to size properly.
These days I buy from the brand own size, the same item and it fits every time.
For me the back pockets are usually good enough to hold the phone when I'm walking then i just put it wherever (bag, table, bike mount, etc) the rest of the time. I wouldn't keep it in my front pocket even if it did fit.
I don't think that xkcd applies. I mean if I am on a clothing seller's website, and they show me a pair of pants and I add 4 colors to the cart of the same size of the same design/model number/style pants, I feel like they should all fit the same.
I mean, I get that it sucks online, but in person? Who cares what the label says? I'm an adult. I can easily tell by looking at a garment how it's going to fit me.
That said, if we could just get the critical measure online that'd be fantastic. No need for sizes, I know how big inches and centimeters are.
And, as it turns out, my favorite retailers do in fact include measurements, but I'd rather have a few quality items than lots of garbage, which is also why I own a sewing machine because sometimes I really love a dress but the manufacturer doesn't accommodate my specific frame. I developed this practice when I was broke and shopping out of thrift stores. It allowed me to buy almost anything and tailor it to make it fit. Really broadens your fashion horizons.
With regard to why sizing is difficult, I'd guess it's just consumer laziness or cognitive dissonance. Although it's maybe a little bit of efficiency too. How many models should I produce (and how many lines do I have to run) to fit every woman just right instead of lying to all of them? For pants alone, if you really want it to actually fit, you're going to need ankle, calf, knee, thigh, inseam/outseam, glute, hip, and waist (and crotch to waistband if you're offering different rises). So if you've got even just 5 measurements (probably not enough as no way do all women fit tailored within 5 different calf sizes), you've got 5^9 different products (and therefore machine configurations) to cover just that space, because yes there are women with massive calfs and small thighs or same waist/hip or whatever combination you can imagine) and that's all just for literally one style. If you've got five different pants that's immediately 5^9.
Lots of (american) women are perfectly fine with their 36in underbust but would be shamed to admit they need a 46in hip with their 32in waist for all that ass. Much better to just lie and say I need an 8 which will not in any world ever make it over my butt.
Maybe we can compromise on a 'call it' measurement which is on average 2 less than the prevailing standard would suggest. If your countries' system would have you in a 8, you can 'call it a 6', and then we're all happy.
same, I wonder why this is. Is it just that modelling / marketing is more effective with things as they presently are? It seems there is a market for better fitting clothes -- likely half (or more!) of clothes bought would make the end customer happier if the items just had a better fit. Why have financial incentives not achieved this?
If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available.
The real concern I have is how the large majority of westerners are overweight or obese. That's a serious issue way beyond the practicality of buying clothes
> If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available.
I'm a man often shopping for bike wear in Europe. I'm neither overweight or obese. The article is right that sizing is a complete mess: with my 180cm and 74kg I'm usually mass market size M in tops and L in pants because I just have a big ass (again I'm not fat, I still have a big ass when I'm 70kg during the height of the summer season). But it's often an S in tops. Anyway, in the bike brands sizing, the tops are mostly M to L.
The bike pants? I have already sent back XXL's because I just couldn't put them on. But for some brands, I'm still L, for others it's XL. The measurements don't mean anything, they are completely off quite often. The only half-usable help is customer reviews where people note their measurements and the size that fit them. Also the sizing is not only inconsistent between brands, but also for different items of the same brand.
One thing I don't really understand is the brands perspective. If someone with my measurements is forced to wear XL (and for long pants the legs are often too long as a result), what is left? Will a guy 185 cm high weighting 90kg, which is not uncommon, be forced to wear an XXXL (if they make this size, which they usually don't)? Do they look at this and think it's good sizing nomenclature?
At a previous employer this was a problem we identified (and larger retailer customers) had recognised, although for other reasons. We had developed a size recommendation system for them, that used real product measurements in every size and a method of obtaining your body measurements from fully clothed photos. We also offered a statistical average measurement set for those who couldn’t/wouldn’t take photos of themselves (privacy was important to us, and there was no need to undress).
We were able to give details about fit comfort across many measurements for each size, but this feature was basically unused. 99% of users used the statistical average body of themselves instead of themselves, which actually exacerbates the body type problem.
Another interesting thing about the industry and the grading process we learned; many retailers had no measurements for their own clothes except the reference size. This was much more common of higher end brands.
1 last thing; some global brands actually have the same size name on the same product represent a different size in different region (eg an SKU in size S in US may have different measurements to the same SKU in S in Asia)
There's also a surprising lack of consistency item-to-item. More than once I have grabbed two of the same pants (same model, same size label, next to each other on the rack) and one would fit well while the other was way too large or way too small.
Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over time.
I think this is why stretchy materials are getting more and more popular. The women in my house use stretchy pants almost exclusively, because they are much more forgiving with body shape. As long as the waist fits, the rest will fit well enough.
[deleted]
Mens sizes have changed over time. Go get a vintage t-shirt from the 80s, medium size, and try it on. It'll be the size of a small or xs today.
I meant more the pants and dress shirts, which are sized in inches.
> pants are sized in inches
I wish! That number is kinda-sorta-related-to inches, but it's not, at least not anymore. I wear a 31 or 32 jean, but my waist is about 34.5 inches. And any jeans which fit my thighs properly (turns out to be about size 34) will fall off my waist.
Measure your own waist and pants, see what you find!
Sizing is chaos.
>Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over time.
It was originally introduced to give countries with shorter people a chance to compete (as rowing depends a lot on height), but in practice it mainly resulted in promising candidates who didn't quite make the cut for heavyweight being forced into eating disorders.
Lightweight rowing has been cut from the olympics already, so to a lot of organisations it has lost its relevance. There are still world championships, but I bet it is only a matter of time before it'll disappear there as well.
[flagged]
To be clear, you’re advocating for women to lose the right to vote? The misogyny in this thread was disappointing already, but seeing this comment being voted up is maybe a sign I should not be on this website any more.
Voted up?
If you mean the troll post didn't immediately fade with one downvote that might just be a matter of having two accounts.
[dead]
Interesting visualizations, but I don't understand what the thesis is. To me, the conclusion says:
1. Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity, which is exclusionary.
2. Clothing size standards do not match diverse body types.
3. There is no sizing standard, and companies size however they want.
0. All commercial premade adult women’s clothing is made exclusively for a small minority of women with hourglass body shapes.
The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn’t realize as a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that clothing manufacturers exclusively market to hourglass body shape alone — which some might recognize better as “pinup model” proportions. As a non-hourglass along with the vast majority of other U.S. women, it’s quite the shock to discover that megacorps are targeting a fraction of the market (hourglass) rather than the largest segment (rectangle).
I think that must be fashion dependent though? I can think of plenty of women's clothes that are definitely not marketed for hourglass physiques.
Yeah I've shopped for clothes enough for my wife to know that even with an hourglass shape, you're guaranteed to find lots of pieces that're like "OK none of these sizes will work on you". Her particular problem is a small waist paired with an hourglass. Plenty of "ruler"-shaped cuts out there on the small end of waist size, that won't work for her.
I wouldn't be surprised if women of every body shape believe that clothes must be targeting some other shape, except the ones who luck into a sizing-region in which multiple body types have a lot of overlap.
I can think of three major markets right now:
Rectangle (athletics-branch brands), Hourglass (most entire fashion brands), and what I believe is Spoon but could be another shape (e.g. Kardashian).
If I want to buy something I see in Vanity Fair magazine, and it fits me, then I will be buying:
- Rectangle: athleticwear or athletics-adjacent, OR ‘petite’ sizes only
- Spoon: bodycon stretch, primarily
- Hourglass: 95% of the page surface area of the magazine
Other magazines vary this formula, but VF is representing the same three body type divisions that are endemic in U.S. clothing. I think the article fails somewhat in this regard, but I honestly don’t consider it a flaw; they make a solid point and the limited niche exceptions are explicitly ‘niche only’ in the industry in favor of hourglass. I’m pretty certain I can find one niche retailer for any given triplet of { measurements, body shape, aesthetic style } — and it’s the introduction of that third component that reveals the problem. For any given style, say plaid or paisley or bodycon or flowy or “any color that isn’t red, gray, black, or white”, given a set of measurements and a body shape, there may only be one retailer known nationwide to serve that market. Torrid and Long Tall Sally both thrive in their respective triplets’ niches, but if you want clothes that fit you and are styled differently than the one retailer offers, it’s tailoring or nothing. (Incidentally, there’s a severe labor shortage of tailors in the tailoring industry as all the skilled workers are aging out of the workforce, same as CPAs in the accounting industry, so good luck finding one at a reasonable price!)
[flagged]
4. Women are the biggest they have ever been in history.
As a 152lb American male, I weigh 11% less than the average American woman.
I just want to say that this is one of the best pieces of data journalism that I have ever seen.
I never check pudding.cool for some reason, but I always smash the link when I see one
What's also annoying is that sizes of the same clothes change.
I have a pair of jeans that I ordered on Amazon in 2020. It happens to fit me great. So recently I decided to order two more of the same. I got exactly the same model with the same size on Amazon, just with different colors. But neither fit very well, they were far wider. The first one had such a horrible fit that I immediately sent it back. The other I can wear, but it's quite different from the other perfectly fitting one. Why are they doing that? It's insane.
"The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s."
I assume they mean circumference rather than diameter, but this is still a shocking increase in only 30 years. I knew the obesity epidemic was an ever-increasing problem, but this really puts it into perspective. I wonder if we'll ever fully understand the causes behind this rapid shift.
There are some theories. Most fresh food in a generic U.S. supermarket has something like 10-25% of the nutrients per pound than it used to a hundred years ago, thanks to soil depletion, so each generation has to consume more pounds of food to get the same amount of nutrients. There’s been long-standing corruption in the FDA “food pyramid” and “recommended daily allowance” systems to bias the U.S. population from recognizing that added sugar leads to obesity. And there’s the advent of chemical non-sugar sweeteners, which in recent decades are turning out to be just as harmful as sugar, only differently. Those may not fully explain obesity, but they certainly are known and understood explanations for obesity — and yet they remain wholly unaddressed.
I think the problem is not whether we’ll fully understand the causes, but more that every cause we have identified to date would require regulating corporations in profit-damaging ways to solve, and it is likely that any future causes we reveal will be the same. That’s anathema in the U.S.: profits are sacrosanct to the two primary political parties, discounting their occasional extremists who argue (correctly) that we should be regulating in favor of consumers, not profits. Typically, the desire for a ‘full’ explanation is used to delay or derail efforts to implement solutions to each single proven explanation, and so I tend to caution against pursuing a complete answer first, and instead recommend asking why we have not yet addressed the known causes while continuing to search for more.
Similar to a sibling comment,
>>the advent of chemical non-sugar sweeteners, which in recent decades are turning out to be just as harmful as sugar, only differently.
requires citations. People lump sugar substitutes together as one class of drugs, but they very much are not. Some are sugar alcohols, some are glycosides, others are different molecules. Different molecules have different mechanisms of action and paths of metabolism.
Much like one might take a "blood pressure" medication, it is a large umbrella consisting of chemically distinct ACE-inhibitors, ARBs, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, calcium channel blockers (dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine distinctly), and more. These drugs generally do have class effects, but the class effects from an ACE inhibitor (bradykinin cough, angioedema, etc) are quite different from diuretics (hyponatremia, frequent urination, etc). One person's 'blood pressure medicine' is not the same as the next.
I agree that the prevalence of sugar substitutes in the western diet demands scrutiny, and I am concerned about their effects, however any current research lumping them all together without strict attention to pharmacological mechanisms supported by translational research is worse than useless - it is misleading.
In the sense of what we 'know' about modern medicine, we 'know' almost nothing about sugar substitutes. The body of evidence is vanishingly thin. I want more research into this topic, but right now, it's just not there.
I'm not providing citations for my tangent here; it's too far off-thread and I'm investing my academic research free time into WtHR instead (see elsethread).
There is no source supporting your claim of nutrient decline in that magitude thanks to soil depletion. It's mostly due to modern crops that grow tall fast, and are thus mostly made up of water.
Some argue that it’s instead because we’ve promoted food strains that have more sugars and less nutrients, and I’m still studying that, so I have no position to offer about it yet. Brussels sprouts is a good example of doing this in a way that doesn’t damage the nutritional value, but the general U.S. avoidance of anything pungent or bitter is reflected in having bred out all of the ‘unattractive’ nutrients from our food strains. A good litmus test for this is to check for dandelion greens on the shelves; if present, the market likely sells a broad spectrum of produce that isn’t simply designed to be a sugar bomb; if absent, I’d be shocked if you found anything nutrient-dense at all.
Someone (not me obviously) should look it up, because I would think that if it was circumference, it would be "4 inches longer" not wider. Because that case, ...wow.
part of it is just raw obesity increase, but part is also an aging population. even if women today WERE the same size as women of the same age 30 years ago, the average over the total population would still be up.
Mostly though it's the obesity increase.
40% of Americans are obese, and 75% are overweight. 30 years ago only 20% were obese.
Ah, yeah, the aging population is a good point.
I can't find a citation now, but I recall reading at some point that weight gain with age (in adulthood) didn't used to happen very much before the obesity epidemic, though nowadays we take it as a given. I wish I could find a source for/against that idea, I'm curious now if it's true.
>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average waist size is 38.5 inches (98 centimeters) for women older than 20 in the United States.2 This represents an increase of roughly two inches since the 1990s, reflecting broader trends in rising rates of obesity and metabolic conditions.3
Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Mean Body Weight, Height, Waist Circumference, and Body Mass Index Among Adults: United States, 1999-2000 Through 2015-2016. Natl Health Stat Report. 2018;(122):1-16.
So these sizes (kid, teen, adult) are kind of ridiculous on their own, and combined with the different international systems even more. If you look at the tongue of a pair of a pair of sneakers for example, sometimes there will be four different numbers for international markets.
I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind.
DJT would slap 86% tariff on any imported good only shown sizing in centimeters so this better be inches :)
>I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind.
Funny you should mention shoes, because this is exactly what european shoe sizes are. It's really just a case of, yet again, Americans stick with an ass-backwards system (inches/pounds/feet, fahrenheit, etc.) when the rest of the world has settled on something much more logical and reasonable.
If we can have mass produced fast fashion from runway to store in weeks...
Why not tailored clothing at scale? Have a set of portable body measurements that can be sent to any retailer - make an order and have it sent from factory to door in a week or two.
Or get a size that is close enough - bring it to your neighborhood tailor. Most alterations are simple and not very expensive.
Unfortunately sizing is just a leaky abstraction. You are trying to distill many variables into a single dimension. It will never be particularly great.
> bring it to your neighborhood tailor. Most alterations are simple and not very expensive.
I think, this is a misconception, some "simple" things like resizing a shirt, when done properly, might require multiple hours + a decent amount of skills and the alterations might be cheap because they are performed by underpaid workers. Nonetheless, I like the idea of supporting local tailors and I'd be in for paying premium for a local premium product.
If sizes were updated to, say, 14Z, where Z is a common industry-wide body shape code, then it would be vastly simpler to find clothing that fits — and people who were a 22 before might now be a 16S, once the clothes are proportioned properly for their non-hourglass body.
The problem underlying this is that retailers do not want to advertise for more than one body shape, because that not only reduces their total profit (9x the models hired, 9x the designs to create, more complicated size ranges than simply blowing up a size 6 design with a photocopier), it also would force everyone in the industry to be revealed all at once as cheaping out on design and production, once the use of H for hourglass spread (since anyone who isn’t using a letter code is obviously Hourglass Only, based on the data). Corporations have multiple strong financial incentives not to do this, and their shareholders would revolt and fire any CEO who tried to reduced profits by incurring massive increases in design cost, product variants, model staffing, and retail/online logistics for the sake of “unattractive” non-hourglass women.
I think the EU’s “no more shredding clothes” initiative is going to have some very interesting ramifications over the next few years, as clothing manufacturers will have to choose between seeing people buy their unsold inventory at the local equivalent to Goodwill here in the U.S., or have to start selling clothing “made to order” with only a limited quantity kept in the store for try-on purposes. Apple, weirdly, already has a perfect logistics pipeline for exactly this approach; you can get an off-the-shelf option in stores, or you can customize it in eight to ten different ways and get something labeled “CTO” — Custom To Order. But that’s not a cheap logistics pipeline for a company that only has to set the copier inflation percentage based on your size choice today — the designs are for size 6 and then they blow it up by 140% for size 10 or whatever (yes, seriously, for real). So it may end up that once the clothing industry has to start making clothing on-demand, they will quickly expand into more options than the “print a ream of t-shirts and try to sell them in 3 months” profit-maxing approach that they’ve all coalesced into today.
> have to start selling clothing “made to order” with only a limited quantity kept in the store for try-on purposes.
This is already pretty much the case. The larger retailers have been very happy to push all "tricky" sizes to the internet, and just stock a larger variety of items in a size or three in the store instead. They'd rather stock 15 items in 3 sizes each than 5 items in 9 sizes each.
If you're not the same size as the median high-volume in-person shopaholic, physical stores these days are closer to a catalog to browse through combined with a post office for pickup.
Combine that with today's fast fashion, and I wouldn't be surprised if some sizes are only being manufactured in the dozens or low-hundreds quantities!
I believe that they're still issuing 'complete production run orders' behind the scenes, and only selling the items on the website once they arrive at the logistics warehouse — in the cases where they haven't made the item yet, they indicate 'preorder' or 'ships in X months', because cargo ships are slow and they're neither paying for air freight nor producing garments domestically. Otherwise you'd see every retailer taking days-to-weeks to initiate a shipment after the order is placed — either it would have been marked 'preorder' (or 'out of stock' after overselling it) because you're being committed an item from a general pool that hasn't been produced yet, or it's from in-stock inventory with JIT replenishment, or MTO/CTO and a production-line allocation is taken aside for your order before it reaches the general pool.
I can't wait for a world where order production, inventory, shipping, and returns are all connected by electric cargo drones that fly containers back and forth using solar power — but this also highlights a critical weakness of 'globalization': when your production, retail, shipping, and returns are all colocated within the same small region, you can do JIT or MTO/CTO with a vastly simpler logistics chain. It's why Walmart sells local farmers' eggs at their stores: eggs are an incredibly annoying food to put through a logistics chain, so if you're JIT replenishment like Walmart is, you want to replenish from the closest possible source of eggs — and that's why In'n'out Burger is only in certain areas of the U.S., too, directly corresponding to whether they can get beef at their target price including transportation costs. American Apparel understood this and did relatively well on it for quite some time, until they collapsed for (checks notes) opening hundreds of retail stores using debt and filing for bankruptcy. Don't count your chickens until the eggs have hatched, indeed.
There is an unmet market niche for tailoring with the 'construct the garment from measurements' stage automated, but critically not the human in the loop during initial measurement, construction, updating one's measurements, and so forth. It was critically important when I was having a corset made to ensure that the folks making the corset took my ribcage angle into account, and they didn't have a 'standard' measurement for that, but they were able to ensure that the construction team had it accounted for. That corset cost four digits because a team of humans spent two months sewing it, and for a corset, that's not something you can currently license or build automated production for. It's a 100% CTO garment sold by a 100% CTO shop, because you cannot non-custom a perfectly-fit corset — and an imperfect fit is fine for occasional use for people in the relevant medians, but most people buying a corset are not in those medians. So, tying this back to the main point, if that shop had offered a service for "we'll also make you some shirts", I would have bought them by the truckload because they would be, bar none, the best-fitting shirts I've ever worn. They didn't, because their production capacity was both hyperspecialized and limited, which is fine. But considering mechanical automation lines versus where to use human beings for their competences, I think one hour per few years of labor paid to someone to measure me and make sure they get it right, plus the cost of the machine-production time for the garments, would be world-changing.
Even if the garments are machine-printed and machine-cut and then machine-assisted sewn by humans, building out the CTO logistics backend of Apple's computer ordering processes, combined with an in-person competent human tailor to translate "my concerns" into "less stretch, more structure" and a production team to translate "more structure" into "use a more complex dart structure and use the -5% stretch fabric"? It wouldn't be hand-sewn, but it would fit, and that would devastate a great deal of business that today is grudgingly conceded to hourglass-exclusive retailers where no alternative yet exists.
That article mentions that custom tailoring can often cost more than the article itself.
We do. For men it's brands like Proper Cloth and for women it's Eshakti or creators on Etsy
Bad news about Eshakti, the company shut down and didn’t deliver many outstanding orders.
I might have missed this in the scroll format but is there any reason not to drop the qualitative size names and just use an actual dimension or two?
I would have said that this is covered under vanity sizing. I have the feeling some consumers might be more inclined to buy a product if it has size M instead of XXL, even if the product is exactly the same. So my take is that, in the name of profit, companies lie about size.
There is a problem with the number of dimensions. Even a t-shirt is described best in neck, chest, waist, and you could add several parameters for sleeves and also for heights. Neither consumers nor manufacturers can really handle the combinatorial explosion, so you have to boil it down to one or maybe two dimensions.
But the reason even that isn't done is mostly history and market expectations. There are clothing categories that sell in actual dimensions, and (aside from the terrible dimensional accuracy of clothing in general) it works fine. But those are all on the "men's" side, and it seems the industry believes women will not like buying based on actual numbers.
Sizing accuracy would definitely be an improvement, but it would shine a spotlight on the core issue that clothing manufacturers are hiding from consumers: they only produce hourglass shaped clothing and ignore the vast majority of body types altogether. If everyone’s sizing was 48-38-48-15 (bust-waist-hip-crotch) rather than L/XL/2XL, at least it would be a lot simpler to write a search engine for it — but there has, in the past century’s history, been extreme hostility from U.S. women in finding that their bodies are changing shape as they age, and so retailers are forced to choose between a sharp drop in profits by telling the truth, or making it difficult to cross-shop between different retailers. As no regulations exist around this, they appear to uniformly choose the latter.
Yeah it's weird that mens pants and womens bras have numerical sizing but other womens clothing doesn't.
It is genuinely incredible how well-fitting clothing is only generally available to some one-third of women who fit well into the anticipated height-waist ratio. Petite options exist in some places, but god forbid you're tall - your choices will be limited to "too short" and "too short and also too wide" if you try to go for a size up.
Skewing that further is the single length ratio of inseam to torso that a retailer's clothing is fit for. If you have short(er) legs and long(er) torso (than the median), you're doubly screwed, both in tops and bottoms; pants will flop past your feet and shirts won't reach your waist. The world is gradually starting to figure this out, but you typically only find 'tunic' (with its higher length-to-waist ratio) in a very few retailers at all.
Very cool visualization, worked great on firefox mobile too which isn't always the case with these types of things.
Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)
Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear, mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor intensive.
I've had some athletic wear with "seamless" features, but after sometime the adhesive lets go. Fixing that at home is much more difficult than needle/thread fixes for normal stitches. To be honest, I never even realized it was "seamless" until the adhesive failed. It had no factor in my purchasing.
why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape? I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?
> why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape?
Woven fabrics are naturally rectangular because they're made of a 2D grid of fibers at 90° angles to each other. The easiest (cheapest) way to make an irregular shape out of a woven fabric is to make a rectangle and cut it down.
> I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?
Knit garments usually have some amount of seaming, but yes, you have a lot of options to make irregular shapes when knitting.
However, knitting machines tend be most efficient and making rectangular fabric. They can do some amount of shaping, but the labor and cost goes up.
If you want to hand knit a garment, you can make quite complex irregular shapes with very little or no need for seaming. However, you're talking about two orders of magnitude more labor to make a garment. Few people want to pay $1,000 for a hand-knit sweater, so you're mostly limited to knitting it yourself or having a friend or loved one who likes you.
They can be! The key phrase to search for is “tubular weaving”.
[deleted]
For t-shirts you're looking for loopwheel or tubular knit.
You can manage a seamless clothing product if you are willing to have it knit on-demand for you, either by machine or by person. If you start with how [1] socks are made, then consider how to decompose your clothes into sock-shapes, you'll find:
Shirts: one tube sock for the torso, two tube socks for the arms, zero ends closed; Pants: two tube socks for the legs, one tube sock for the torso, zero ends closed; Gloves: five tube socks for the appendages, one tube sock for the palm, zero-to-five ends closed depending on fingerless style; Socks: one tube sock with one end closed; Hats: one tube sock with one end closed.
So it's entirely possible to construct a sock weaving pattern that ends up weaving a head-to-toe single garment for you out of some kind of stretchy yarn, that you would then have to figure out how to clamber into through the face hole (since that's the only open-ended sock) — but that coverall (literally!) pattern would have to be constructed for your complete set of measurements [2] in every regard, and that's an exceedingly costly amount of labor (measurement, knitting, measurement, unraveling, repeat). You can scale down that cost for seamless tops or bottoms somewhat, which you'll absolutely see high-fashion retailers do, but at the end of the day it's the cost of bespoke-tailored clothing from scratch plus the cost of bespoke-knit fabric from scratch plus the cost of not getting it exactly right the first time. None of this is intended to criticize your desire — I hate awful seams and I have collected clothing that has seams that don't bother me and/or are extravagantly seams because the sweater was intentionally panel-knit inside-out! — but I wanted to offer a bit of depth into why it's difficult to find seamless. You have to start and end the knit somewhere, and that's exponentially simpler if you start and end the knit more than once; thus, seams.
[2] https://cwandt.com/products/personal-body-unit-index makes the point nicely enough, though I believe you need Even More And Different measurements for tailoring [3] that were out of scope for this particular creation:
> Che-Wei’s Mom often does this weird finger walking dance along the edges of furniture, fabric or random stuff. She knows that the span of her hand from thumb to pinky measures 18cm. So she can quickly size things up. We always thought this was funny, until we realized it was GENIUS and started to copy her. We made Personal Body Unit Index so we can be more like Che-Wei’s Mom.
[3] Men's tailoring measurements are generally optimized for a couple dozen taken at most; further variability gets handled through 'adjustments' or 'on the fly' rather than formally at the construction stage. I think I can identify a couple dozen measurements just on my torso alone — just the bust is an entire three-dimensional construct that has to be measured over, across, under, rise, attachment shape, attachment height and width, volume, not to mention desired support/lift/shaping, and that's before we even get to the usual waist-hips-butt conglomerate, torso/arm length, shoulder width, upper/lower arm width that men are familiar with, and the perhaps less-familiar belly shape/distribution (it isn't always above-the-belt as is typical for men) and front abdomen curve shape (often without a certain male sexual characteristic, often with varying fat pattern distributions, see also belly).
What a lovely website, and the torso silhouette sizing diagrams are invaluable.
I'm not the target demographic, but the main problems I have are proportions not simply waistsize. I was under the impression a size range [xs,s,m,l,xl] was supposed to adjust girth (bust, waist, hip, thigh) while leaving the vertical measurements unchanged (inseam, rise). Because nothing fits, I purchase a sizing range with the intention to keep just one and return the rest. It makes for pretty funny discussions: $500 on <clothing> WTF! Anyway I've started measuring clothing dimensions and have found that the brands I shop generally tend to adjust other dimensions in a 2:1 girth:height ratio. This means that if I want a snug waistline I'll have a tight crotch or be forced to wear pants on or below the hip. Now I like wearing pants somewhere between waist and hip. There's a band of fat/padding/sinew (?) just above the hips that makes for the sweet spot in terms of comfort and utility. I don't understand clothing that's meant to sit on the hips... so uncomfortable.
As a rule of thumb I tend to shop Asian clothing stores in the US because they tend to better fit my proportions, but lately it's become hit-or-miss, i.e uniqlo. I've also got some pretty weird proportions due to my exercise regimen.
Also you've got to love brands that don't provide actual sizes. Wtf!
Size ranges are almost always infuriating. I sample my measurements throughout the day to get an accurate range and average. This is invariably what occurs:
store sizes: x1-x2, x3-x4, x5-x6
me: x2-x3
Infuriating! Ranges suck!
Then there's this little unexplained morsel:
> The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s.
Their data is drawn from the US, so I'm wondering if this is related to the obesity epidemic, or a general change in silhouette. I was under the impression that historically, humans are trending taller and skinnier.
As a short adult male (5'5" - 165cm), it's always been difficult to find pants or jeans with a 28" inseam. Surprisingly, AmazonBasics line of clothes is one of the few mass produced consumer brands that has this size. Niche alternatives like Peter Manning are expensive, so it's great Amazon does this.
In theory, the claim in pants from retailers over time was that you could "just get them hemmed" — but if your jeans shape is bootcut or flare, then the leg curves sewn into the fabric will be in the wrong places for your knees, and/or you'll end up hemming off the flare. This gets especially frustrating in women's fashion because bell bottoms are popular, and there's no way to hem them without losing the 'bell' at the 'bottom' of the leg — but retailers only produce them in specific waist-inseam pairings, and so if you want to wear nice jeans with a nice flare, you have to get very lucky in finding them (especially if you're low-rise!) if they happen to exist at all.
Here's an article from 2002 talking about how we could just have data-based sizing:
Great visualizations but you can't buy a shoe without knowing that a 10 in one brand is not a 10 in a second brand or that for example you need to size down when ordering Dr. Martens then there is no way to expect clothing to be more accurate than a shoe.
Sure, not every shoe brand is equal, but if I know I'm a 9, I can generally start there and find a shoe plus/minus a half size. I have yet to go into a store and wind up in a shoe that is 3 sizes larger than what I thought my size was. Or 3 sizes smaller. Or a size 8 in one shoe from a brand and a 10 different shoe. I can order Nike/Jordan brand shoes without trying them on and they fit. Have done it for years.
I went to re-buy the "same" jeans ~8 months after my initial purchase and the size I was wearing didn't fit in the new jeans. Tried another pair with a different wash and was back to the original size. I have tried on jeans from the same brand with similar cuts and came away two sizes apart. I can swing several sizes as a starting point between some stores. I get it, not every jean is going to be identical, but it isn't a ridiculous ask to be able to have a size I can start at and be within a size of what I need.
Anecdotally, I discovered recently that I’m a full three sizes down in Vivobarefoot shoes versus normal shoes — but for a really interesting reason. It turns out that modern runner’s shoes actually are often shaped like a foot, rather than like a spatula, and so now that I don’t have to size up for my toebox width thanks to them creating shoes that are foot shaped in disregard to fashionable propriety, I now fit much better into a 3-sizes smaller shoe than I did into their older shoes at my prior size.
Part of why retailers are afraid to change sizing is that lots of women install their clothing into their ego and brag about it socially. I don’t approve, but I recognize the extrinsic cultural circumstances* that pressure them to do so. It’s a a lot harder to brag about being a size 49-42-48–8-30 than it is to brag about being a 20UK. (The /22 in 20/22 UK, the common size these days, is silent, because size lying is normalized.)
It would make more sense instead for them to choose an anchor measurement and a body type modifier; but that gets into the problems of having to annotate nine different body type letters onto a numeric size, not to mention having to design clothing that looks good on nine different body types, and having to hire models of nine different body types. The modeling industry is unprepared to staff that need, too!
* The phrase “pinup-hourglass male-gaze body-shape imposed-ideal” serves as an excellent starting point for research on that nightmare. For those unfamiliar, ask your friends who are women about that exact phrase, and remember to listen rather than critique their potentially-lengthy reply. I’m focusing on the sizing discussion and leave that topic as an exercise for the reader.
[deleted]
Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative marketing?
And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right?
edit: Really should have used the /s, I guess - women's clothing has some appalling aspects to it, one of which is notoriously tiny pockets, which is a source of frustration for many women. For some, it even comes as a shock when they find out men can do things like put phones in their pockets.
The emotional manipulation surrounding many women's products is a different beast entirely from what men experience, generally.
You're not supposed to talk about this. Someone I used to know was fired from the New York Times for saying too much about it.[1][2]
Men's clothes have gone through the same process over the course of my lifetime. For instance, I wear the same brand and size of jeans that I did in college. The waist size back then was broadly accurate to the actual size in inches, but today, thirty years on, I weigh ~20lbs more, and that waist "measurement" has up-sized along with me. I guess it's meant to flatter me, but is it really fooling anyone? I guess, based on other's comments in this thread, that it does, and vanity sizing works, which is just sad.
(Then there are men's "relaxed" fits, which bear even less relationship to actual measurements. Maybe "slim" sizing is closer to the old system? Even when they fit my waist - like, six nominal inches bigger than standard! I'm not that much wider - they don't fit my legs, so I don't know.)
None of that's anywhere close to as ridiculous as women's sizing, but give 'em time and I'm sure it will be.
It’s basically the only brand where I can buy online without trying it on, and still be confident that it will fit as expected.
My own experience with men's jeans in recent times has been that the waist size is accurate, but the fit type is critical. I won't fit into any type of "slim fit" and "regular fit" needs to be one waist size up. "Relaxed fit" or its newer cousin "athletic fit" each work for me perfectly. That has been the case for two brands of jeans, at least.
I have a pair of men's jeans. If I lay them flat, while buttoned, and measure the width of the cloth with a cloth measure, I get 16.5", so roughly a 33" circumference. They're a 32"x34" size pair, … so that's basically spot on.
Note that, at least AIUI, the measurement printed on the pair is the wearer's waist measurement, so we thus expect the measured circumference of the top of the jeans to be slightly wider, since men's jeans are not intended to sit at the waist.
The outer measurement will also be larger than the inner. If your waist measures precisely 32", a 32" outer-measurement waistband (sans some stretch) will be too snug.
While I don't disagree, the fabric is a few millimeters thick. I think there's more error in my measurement with a cloth measure with them laid on the bed than the inner vs. outer diameter.
Women have it much worse but it’s the same with men’s clothes.
A “large” men’s shirt from Uniqlo is totally different from a “large” from Volcom and so on. Start making your own clothes and realize there’a a thousand dimensions to a shirt and “waistline” is barely scratching the surface.
Don’t get me started on shoes, especially if you have wide feet. Something like “wide” means totally different things. Unlike clothes, poorly fitting shoes will absolutely destroy you.
At least pants have WxL.
I’ve come to chalk up clothes sizing as a natural complexity of life.
and then you buy two different brands of pants of the same w/l and they fit completely differently /)_-)
And you buy the same brand and model of pants from the same retailer and they still fit completely differently due to variation in the product. Pretty annoying, I just want to buy my Levi's 510s every couple years and get the same thing each time.
yeah I dont buy pants without trying them on now, and usually still need to get them tailored. buying oversized shirts is fine online tho because if you get them a bit wrong in either direction its fine.
The original title made clear that this was about sizing for women's clothes. I'm not sure why that was removed; it wasn't clickbaity, and made the title more informative. In fact, I'd argue that just "Sizing chaos" is more clickbaity. (The article itself doesn't seem to have an official title.)
It's cool to see pudding.cool making the front of HN regularly.
[deleted]
The issue is not the sizes, the issue is the obesity epidemic. According to CDC [1] the average woman in the US is 5'3" weighing 172lbs. That's not just overweight but rather first degree of obesity. I guess you could argue that sizes should catch up to the demands when half of your population is straight up fat but I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy.
The article points out that the problem is deeper than this:
> Once I compared my personalized sloper to commercial patterns and retail garments, I had a revelation: clothes were never made to fit bodies like mine. It didn’t matter how much weight I gained or lost, whether I contorted my body or tried to buy my way into styles that “flatter” my silhouette, there was no chance that clothes would ever fit perfectly on their own.
[flagged]
The article has mounds of data that to speak to exactly how the clothing sizes ARE the issue. Inconsistencies within brands, across brands, shifting vanity sizes, and shapes designed to fit only 12% of women. And yet, the top comment is about obesity...
Yes, obesity is clearly an epidemic. But discounting the entire article's premise to point that out?
Thanks, any one with kids experiences this. It's so frustrating. For the same kid you could literally have 5 different sizes that are the same. So you have to keep track of sizes by brand. Trying a new brand is often an adventure. Worse of all, if you come across a sale and rush to take advantage of it. You could end up having lots of items shipped only to have to return every single one of them. It's a mess.
Despite the article highlighting only people of width as the "millions of people who are excluded from standard size ranges", sizing is also a problem in the other direction: it's practically impossible to find well-fitting clothes if you're tall and in decent shape. To your point, though, perhaps there was a time when "large" and "x-large" meant "slightly tall" and "quite tall" rather than "slightly tall plus obese" and "quite tall plus very obese".
As a dude who is 6’ 1” or thereabouts with a 32” or thereabouts waist and a 34” (or thereabouts) inseam: can confirm.
Carhartts size up a waist size to account for shrinking, and I can almost reliably find a 34/34. Finding 32/34 in other pants is a challenge. On the subject of vanity sizing, I’m 15 pounds heavier than I was 20 years ago, and I still wear a 32/34. Which is why all those measurements are qualified above.
Finding shirts that fit is a similar challenge. Fitted shirts can usually be found in 16 34-35 with an athletic cut. Letter sizes are a total crapshoot. Sometimes I’m a L, sometimes an M. If I’m an M across the gut, frequently the shoulders are far too tight.
Not that I’m complaining as such, but I do agree that the sizes encompass too little information about body shape.
I'm 6'0 34/32 and even still feel some of this; L shirts are baggy, but M shirts (and sweaters) are often too short in the length and arms, especially after a wash.
And it's not my imagination; I have a few custom made dress shirts from Maxwell's and those absolutely do feel correct in both dimensions.
A tall medium where available will typically work for me but most brands don't have it at all and those that do it's a special order so what's even the point of being in the store; I might add well have just done a blind buy online from home.
As a dude who is 6'7" with a 35" waist (34" in brands that do vanity sizing) and an inseam that can handle a 34" even if it's not quite long enough, I agree that it's tough. One of the more annoying problems is that the MT shirt size doesn't seem to exist where I shop and LT flares outwards at the bottom. At least it's pretty easy to get a shirt taken in.
I’m not affiliated with it but I recommend americantall.com
They only do clothes for tall people.
(And for women who’ve made it this deep in the thread, Long Tall Sally has been pretty excellent over time.)
For work casual (and formal!), I was thrilled to discover tailored shirts. Not bespoke, but actually getting fitted in a store like Jos. Bank that handles the alterations.
The value proposition is comfort and they last a decade.
I do support addressing obesity (see my elsethreads), but duly noted that it’s not a cure-all panacea for the problems faced by women. Obesity does not address the nine different U.S. body shapes; one can be obese and rectangular, or obese and spoon, or obese and triangle. Resolving obesity is a worthy cause, but will only reduce or remove the impact of size inflation on ‘vanity’ sizing as a whole, without addressing the significant disparity of sizes between manufacturers or the near-total lack of products for the eight non-hourglass body shapes.
Yeah, I didn't want to be nasty about it, but the article saying that 37" is the median adult American woman's waist measurement is... pretty shocking. Like, I'm a 6' slightly out of shape dude and my waist fluctuates from 33-35". You'd have to be pretty large to have a feminine figure and have the narrow part be 2" wider than my widest section.
Have you measured your waist? Vanity sizing is a thing in men’s clothes too.
No you're not. That's the size your brands of choice advertise to you so you think that you're slimmer than you are.
For anyone else wondering. Im also a 33 or 34 in pretty much any brand, just measured my waistline (where my pants usually sit), 38.5 inches.
Never knew!
Ha, TIL
I'll point out a statistical hazard here. While CDC lists the average height and weight at 5'3" and 172 lbs, the medians appear to be 5'3" and 161 lbs. That's a BMI of 28 and is considered overweight (25-30), not obese. Although I'll mention BMI is a pretty rough measure to begin with.
To provide context for those still using BMI as the sole 'fat or not' discriminator — the CDC published an n=9894 longitudinal study* about ten years ago; generally summarizing figure 1, the median starts around 0.53 +/- gender variance at 20-29, peaks at 0.62 +/- at 70-79, and then begins decreasing from there; however, they found that BMI fails to represent the 'fat' levels improperly (to our detriment) for people in their 40s (figure 2), as older human bodies tend to lose fat in areas (i.e. arms) that have no significant bearing on overall health, but gain fat in the abdomen (which other studies have shown does correspond to increasing cardiovascular issues). They show median waist-to-height-ratio data as 'monotonically increasing abdominal adipose tissue throughout the years of adulthood but decreasing mass in non-abdominal regions', which bodes very poorly for clothing manufacturers — because not only do you have to account for nine body shapes in women, but you also have to account for age skewing the waist-to-length ratios of the body shape further.
It would be particularly interesting to repeat this sizing study using the garment length to identify where it falls in 'height' median for women, and then identifying what 'age' median the garment's waistline is calibrated for. I can certainly guess what the results will be from personal experience on a per-retailer basis, and it would be a useful way to mathematically identify 'underserved niches' in today's market to target with appropriately-fit clothing (without a body scan).
“BMI fails to represent the 'fat' levels improperly” - what is that supposed to say. I’m just done trying to understand things that the writer didn’t even read.
*properly. Apologies, logical negation errors are and always will be my bane in self-proofreading.
I am really surprised about the sharp increase in body size by age in the USA.
I have just anecdotal experience here in Europe, but I know for a fact that all the females in my family have kept the same size since they were 16-18 years old. That’s also my experience with the male side of the family.
Most adults in the US become physically inactive after they leave school/collage and move to an area where they have to drive everywhere, while sitting in an office the rest of the day.
While I'm well aware weight gain requires over consumption, I feel there is an under appreciated importance on being somewhat mobile rather than sitting/laying down for 23 hours a day
You can live a completely sedentary lifestyle and lose or maintain weight through eating normal amounts of food. Exercise is not the problem, overeating consistently is.
For women, it's very common to consume sugary coffee flavored drinks and this behavior is glamorized on social media.
For men, the problem is worse.
In theory sure, but teenagers love sugary drinks and burgers too, sugar drinks exist all over the world too where obesity rates are significantly lower. While you can be slim while sitting all day doing nothing, being physically active is massively important for your health.
The fact that the particular area you live in determines so much of the probability a person would be obese suggests the location plays a huge part. While sugary drinks are marketed and popular everywhere.
I remember a survey of explanatory variables for obesity. The variable that explained more was the size of corn subsidies.
The hypothesis was: if you produce it, it will be consumed (Say's Law). Lower prices mean larger quantities demanded. (I know, it sounds like a confounding variable, you need a cross-sectional regression)
Yea, if you read between the lines in this article this stands out. Over half of all adult women don't fit into regular sizes. "Plus size" is not normal.
[deleted]
> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy.
An even better angle is educating Starbucks to stop selling unhealthy garbage.
The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.
This is an extremely hazardous opinion.
It is true that corporations spend vast resources attempting to lure consumers into their webs but you do have agency! You can resist!
Vote with your wallet and strip these bad actors of the power you handed to them when you gave up.
> The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy.
You know they have Starbucks in other countries without an obesity crisis?
No one is forcing you or I to order a particular drink at Starbucks; they literally put the number of calories directly next to the menu item. The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.
> The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.
If you put a pile of junk food on the floor, your pet will eat it until they make themselves sick.
We are smarter than many animals and have more discipline. But we are still animals and do not have unlimited executive function. The people who architect the environment of incentives that surround us bear some amount of responsibility for the behavior those incentives create.
Denying that is denying that we are living beings subject to all of the same limitations as any other mortal animal. We are not spherical rational actors in a vacuum.
You can't control the incentives, you can only control your reactions to those incentives.
Just eyeballing a map, the countries that pop out as both having Starbucks and not having an obesity problem are China and India. Other than that, it looks like most of the countries that have Starbucks have obesity rates over, like, 20%, which seems pretty bad.
This isn’t to say Starbucks is causing obesity, of course. Most likely they are showing up together as the economy develops.
I do think it is worth noting that obesity is a pretty widespread problem, not uniquely American or anything like that.
Yeah but progressive ideals are a much harder sell if people have to take responsibility for their actions. "Others should pay for my mobility scooter because others keeps feeding me junk food" and all that.
Then again, free will is an illusion, so...
That Starbucks probably saved my life after I made an unwise decision to bike 40 miles on an empty stomach. Bonking is real, and I’m glad they are allowed to sell the sugary beverages to prevent me from bonking.
Oh and I also fainted the first time I donated blood, because I did not know I should not donate blood while fasting. Again, sugary drinks helped.
I bonked in the middle of a 100km ride on a rail trail through farmer's fields. I thought I'd had enough food, since the same amount was sufficient for the initial trip out a few days earlier, but it wasn't. It was the return journey of my first big bike trip, and it was absolute hell after I bonked. I'd ride for twenty minutes, then lie on the ground for ten. When I was laying on the ground I'd be searching the vegetation for anything that looked vaguely edible.
Crazy how a glucose drop can sneak up and humble you so quickly!
There's a lot of area on the spectrum between where we are today and "sugary beverages are all banned".
For example, Starbucks could limit the sizes it sells and advertises—you'd still be able to have as much sugar as you would like by buying multiple drinks, but it would raise the activation energy needed to do that. Making the healthier choice the path of least resistance works wonders.
You really can't discern between a healthy portion of sugar and an unhealthy portion of sugar? I can assure you it should be way less than what they are serving. Especially since society will bare these costs in a variety of unexpected ways, Starbucks needs to be compelled into doing so. They broke the societal compact, they have to be punished.
I can discern it very well. And indeed I think for the people like me who can discern it, stores should be able to sell these sugary beverages. The same amount of sugar is unhealthy when I’m sedentary, but absolutely necessary in other cases.
You could just buy two less-sugary ones
That's fine but people like you are an extreme minority and I'd rather the government regulate the greed from these addiction companies rather than forcing tax payers to foot the bill.
Corporate welfare has to end.
By that logic, should Starbucks also sell life-saving insulin and epi pens?
You know multinational brands sell sweeter products in the US than in other countries?
It's not that all the rest of the world has sugar tax or something. It's customer profile.
Christ man, do you wake up every morning and pray while facing Washington DC and ask for guidance as to whether or not you should drink battery acid? People are responsible for their fucking decisions!
I'm guessing that you meant this in a semi-humorous and hyperbolic way rather than a mean way, but it would probably be good to review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. A comment like this wouldn't need too much to come across as friendly rather than aggressive.
GLP-1s disprove this to an extent. Personal responsibility is based on a fallacy, it’s just brain chemistry.
So give everyone GLP-1s to cast the shadow of personality responsibility (reduction in adverse reward center operations, broadly speaking) through better brain chemistry. Existence is hard, we can twiddle the wetware to make it less hard.
The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work - if you force yourself into a caloric deficit through the inhibition of hunger hormones using drugs that you will lose weight. It has nothing to do with people choosing to eat highly processed unhealthy foods over healthier options. When you're on Ozempic or peptides like Retatrutide/Tirzepatide you don't think "I will not eat a bag of chips today because it's unhealthy and calorie dense", you simply don't think about eating because your feeling of hunger is inhibited.
You are incorrect. GLP-1s modify food desires as well. “Will power” is merely hormone levels in this regard.
> Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes and obesity treatment. Their effects on appetite and satiety are well established, but less is known about their associations with food purchases. Case reports and small observational studies suggest that GLP-1RA initiation is associated with altered preferences from highly processed, energy-dense products to minimally processed foods. We examined whether initiation of GLP-1RAs for treatment was associated with changes in nutritional quality and processing level of supermarket purchases.
> Changes in purchasing patterns after GLP-1RA initiation were seen across most nutrient categories. Opposed to comparisons, after the first prescription, participants purchased fewer calories, sugars, saturated fats, and carbohydrates, alongside modestly more protein. The share of ultraprocessed foods also decreased. Although modest at the individual level, these changes may accumulate at the population level, particularly given increasing GLP-1RA use.
Food desires are simply addictions like smoking. If you cease consuming high amounts of processed food and sugar (through the inhibition of hunger), then you also kill these cravings.
GLP-1 functioning as methodone is fine for me tbh. Medically assisted addiction management is pretty gold-standard for a lot of addictions!
> The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work
This is incorrect, as demonstrated over and over again. For many people's bodies, consuming less will result in the body changing its metabolism to burn less, and not dipping into fat stores. Conversely, for many people's bodies, exercising more does not in fact change their metabolism and the amount of energy they burn. (There are studies that going from "zero" to "not zero" makes a meaningful difference, but "not zero" to "quite active" often doesn't.) "CICO" is not useful or actionable for many people.
That there is variance in energy expenditure both within a population and within a person over time doesn't mean that a caloric deficit doesn't work. It just means that using a single scalar value (which is usually a gross estimate) to drive your caloric intake is a poor approach.
The body has means to regulate it's energy expenditure to maintain homeostasis, and in some people it can be a hundreds of kcal difference. But if you're trying to lose body fat on a 10% estimated deficit and fail, the conclusion shouldn't be that a 20% deficit will also fail.
For some people, a 50% "deficit" fails. And the entire concept of "X workout burns Y calories" is completely bunk. Again, there have been multiple studies to this effect.
Are you actually saying some people don’t lose weight on a 50% caloric deficit? Is there any evidence of that?
[deleted][deleted]
It's not physically possible for a 50% deficit to fail, what you probably mean is that their energy expenditure was incorrectly estimated at +50%.
No, what I mean is that their body's energy expenditure changed in response to the change in their caloric intake, with no other changes taking place.
The body may try to maintain homeostasis but 50% sounds way too high. Someone with a tdee of 2200 kcal will not be able to maintain their weight at 1100 calories for very long.
Adaptation in energy expenditure includes both metabolic adaptation as well as "NEAT" ("non-exercise activity thermogenesis"); the latter includes subconscious changes in posture, fidgeting, and various other things that can increase/decrease the body's energy expenditure by a massive degree, in an effort to (as far as people can tell) maintain a "set point" in the body that is difficult to change. This set point resists both weight gain and weight loss, both attempting to resist the change in the first place and attempting to undo it if successful.
I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to lose weight through sufficiently large caloric restriction. I'm observing that it is not anywhere close to as simple as "CICO", because CO is heavily a function of CI, rather than the popular incorrect perception of CO being things like "exercise".
Neat can maybe explain a couple hundred kcal variance in most people, perhaps there are exceptions but 50%? I've never seen that in the literature.
Calories in calories out is just the summation of expenditure and intake, just because the body is complex and there are many interdependent factors doesn't mean it cant be resolved to a vector which determines weight gain/loss. The problem is people google a tdee calculator, get some scalar which is likely wrong, perhaps substantially, make lifestyle changes, and then have an expectation of some result in a specific timeline that isn't realistic, and then eat a bunch of sodium, put on 2 lbs in their "deficit", and think the diet made them fatter! Or they read that -3500kcal == -1lb fat, calculate their calories burned from the machines at the gym, and get frustrated when it doesn't work (I'm guilty!).
Weight loss is actually really hard because it really just requires a sustained effort over a long period of time to achieve anything. You might not see any results for weeks as your body adjusts, you get your diet locked in, etc. And since your weight can vary so much day to day, it's hard to stay motivated. Ozempic kind of bypasses these problems. You know what else works? 20k steps a day and eating on a backpacker budget :P
Eh? I mean, this sounds potentially interesting but I don’t understand it!
The consistency that I'm hearing from all across patient groups is gain of control, whereas previously, there was a loss of control… All of a sudden they're able to step back and say, 'oh, well I had this shopping phenomenon that was going on, gambling, addiction, or alcoholism, and all of a sudden, it just stopped,'
- Dr. Gitanjali Srivastava, Vanderbilt Medical Center
[deleted]
Read my comment more carefully.
If a company put a giant a giant bollard in the middle of the interstate and someone hit it, are you saying that the company bears zero responsibility for that?
Are millions of people voluntarily paying money to hit the bollard daily or thereabouts when not hitting the bollard is free and takes less time out of their day?
Yeah it would be better if everyone just didn't eat crap but crap is what people want.
Having briefly experienced weight loss drugs - and the bliss of that constant “EAT!” voice in your head just going quiet - I’m pretty convinced most humans have a genuine genetic predisposition to overeating.
And when you zoom out to the population level, the “we’re all autonomous individuals” argument gets a lot shakier.
Like yeah, at the individual level you have agency, you make choices, fine. But at scale? We are absolutely at the mercy of whoever has figured out how to tickle our monkey brains in just the right way to get us buying their fattening food.
> They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.
I walk by Starbucks every day without consuming 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks. You think that's due to their agency??
You can be in perfect shape and still not find clothes that fit. The issue IS the sizes.
Expecting mass-market, lowest-common-denominator products to be tailored to your special circumstance is the issue.
Normalize going to a tailor, instead of grumbling about how you aren't benefiting enough from the sweatshops mass retailers are running.
But they're not lowest-common-denominator products. If they were, clothing designers would be tailoring clothes for a rectangular figure. The article clearly shows that only 12% of women have that "hourglass" figure and yet, by design, almost all the clothing manufacturers are tailoring their clothes for this shape, regardless of size.
You think companies are all deliberately leaving big money on the table by making hourglass clothes as an oopsie?
They're doing it because people are buying clothes based on superficial appearance, and most people prefer the aesthetics of the hourglass shape.
Rectangular clothing doesn't sell as well because it doesn't look as good on a mannequin even if it fits better.
[deleted]
Yeah I wanted to point out the same. This sizing problem is not as prevalent outside of the US/Mexico (leaders in obesity).
It’s less prevalent in EU and even less so in some East Asian countries.
Regulate now. You would think it actually levels the playing field for everyone.
Never got this, nor the bizarre dysfunctional pockets on womens clothes.
In wartime/rationing, the government stipulated hem size, banned turn-ups, oxford bags, specified jacket lengths, cloth weights. For working class people, clothes IMPROVED. (de-mob (de-mobilisation) suits were for some working men the best suit of clothes they had ever owned)
[deleted]
Almost like we should use, you know, units of length, when measuring lengths/widths/etc.
Funny enough, vanity sizing strikes there too. The purported waist size of a pair of Levi's is off by almost three inches.
One might argue that the size on their label is not supposed to indicate the size of the garment waistband, but the waist size of the wearer who would find it comfortable, but even with that interpretation it doesn't work out right.
Yeah. It's a remarkable problem. There is a clear solution that is happily used for men. You tell people what to measure then have the clothes sized for the various dimensions.
Charles Tyrwhitt have this guide where they tell you what to measure for shirts :
Presumably some online shops for women have something similar?
Sizing only sucks because diet and exercise habits changed since the sizes were introduced.
But then why haven't the sizes been updated? We've been gaining weight slowly over decades, they've had time.
We're all still collectively telling ourselves we'll get back in shape any day now.
Hot take (?):
The random sizing today is great:
* If you want a better fit, go physically to a store instead of shopping online and try them on.
* the vanity part is also fine, no need to cause outrage at raising the number and making people depressed cause they think they're even more "fat". It doesn't need to be "optimized"
* Only serves online retail to "standardize", but guess what, 15th standard also sucks... <cue xkcd comic about standards>.
Enjoyed the presentation of the site. :)
[deleted]
This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to considered victims so lets make up something to whine about"
A few concrete issues:
(1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should relabel the clothing, all that would do is raise the price and effectively make poor people poorer.
(2) they show people "Americans" get heavier - That might be reality but maybe being reminded you're wearing extra large is a good thing? Like you really are "overweight" and that's unhealthy. You can choose to ignore that but the rest of us aren't required re-label you as something you're not
(3) They graph high-fashion like LV and show they don't have large sizes. So what? Ferrari doesn't make cheap cars. I'm not required to make product that suits you. If you don't like what I'm offering, pick some other company's products. I don't like donuts, I don't go to a donut store and demand they offer pizza. Nor do I go to jeans store and demand they carry suits.
(4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue? Try the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's what I do because duh!, different people and companies follow different patterns. Some fit, some don't.
If you want to fix any of these - feel free to start your own clothing brand. Clearly you believe the market isn't being served. If so, put your money where your mouth is rather than requiring others to risk theirs
Its like the pockets complaints.
Women desperately want pants with pockets, but pockets throw off the aesthetic, so they don't sell well.
Is that actually true though? Because I remember distinctly as a teen somewhere in the 00s where pockets stopped being an option. I could not and still cannot buy them in regular stores. I have to go to speciality stores or order online to get pockets. A lot of women have become resigned, but I rarely know a woman who isn't very excited about pockets for every day wear.
I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting.
While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.
Japan was the example that stood out to me. (It's where UNIQLO is from.)
I'm 5'11"/180cm with US11/EU45 feet. They didn't sell boots that fit me in Japan. I got a deal on an "XL" jacket that the salesman insisted I buy, because I was the only person to have ever come into the store that it fit. (It's the only thing I've ever worn labelled "XL.")
I'm pretty much the same size as you.
I am a 4XL in China (or was, when I was there last) and a S in the US.
That blows my mind.
As a healthy sized individual I've always found buying clothes based on measurements rather than vanity sizing much more useful as well. Can't say it's enough to force the hand of an entire market... but I also can't point to what marking in only vanity sizes is providing the consumer in the first place.
[deleted]
> (4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue? Try the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's what I do because duh!, different people and companies follow different patterns. Some fit, some don't.
Many people, especially women, suffer from peer pressure. You just seem to lack the empathy to acknowledge that a lot of them really struggle because of clothing sizes, out of fear of being stigmatised.
Can confirm the utter hell it is to shop for women's clothing. I started transitioning at the ripe old age of 36, and up until that point, have obviously bought clothes for men. My entire fucking life I have bought XL shirts and jeans with a 38-44 inch waist, shorter legs. Never had an issue.
Womens sizes... like Jesus Christ, I don't know how ANY women tolerate this shit. It's completely made up. A size 0 in one brand feels similar to a size 3 in another, feels similar to Large in another, feels similar to -1 in another. Anything you buy and like, you effectively have to pray they keep making forever, and always buy from that brand or you risk getting something else that doesn't fit correctly.
I've never shopped a product category that feels so utterly hostile to consumer comprehension, except MAYBE microtransactions in videogames. And I'm not meaning to be dramatic, that's the only other type of market I've experienced in life where it feels like my attempts to understand what I'm buying are being deliberately frustrated like this.
It's intentional, to force you to engage a salesperson, and that salesperson knows all the jargon and unnecessary variations and how to size clothing that fits you. Once you have a positive transaction like that, it gives the company the opportunity to get a very loyal customer out of you, and it's the more pricey and "exclusive" brands. 100% emotional manipulation - they piss you off on purpose so they can seem like a hero and set you up with clothing that feels and looks good, but the specific fit will only match their numbers, and maybe even only their numbers for that season. How about ensuring that you can match someone who wears XL with an L right after holiday season, or hit them with an XL in the fall to set them up for a change during the holidays, etc.
The schemes are ruthless and never end, and it's all arbitrary fashion. In some ways, it's a lot easier being a guy.
[deleted]
I mean shit, I'd happily engage with salespeople if I wasn't terrified of my red-state-living self getting hatecrimed if I go to the wrong store.
Is this not the case with men?
To an extent, yes.
However, men's clothing is generally rather shapeless, whereas women's clothing is usually quite figure-fitting.
Women also have a lot more variety in body shape: breasts are a thing, for starters, and there's a wide variety in which areas fat is primarily stored.
Is sizing an issue for men as well? Yeah, probably. But it is significantly worse for women.
[deleted]
>By age 15, most girls have gone through growth spurts and puberty, and they’ve reached their adult height.
>Many have started to outgrow the junior’s size section.
Ummmmm.... What? I wore junior’s sizes well into my 30s. Am I really that much of an outlier?
Statistically, yes.
> I took stacks upon stacks of jeans with me to the dressing room, searching in vain for that one pair that fit perfectly. Over 20 years later, my hunt for the ideal pair of jeans continues. But now as an adult, I’m stuck with the countless ways that women’s apparel is not made for the average person, like me.
I'm a 5'6 145lbs adult male. Y'know how many clothes are made that fit me? T-shirts, size S, fitted; and dress shirts by Express. That's basically it. Pants don't fit me because the legs aren't short enough, the crotch isn't long enough, and I don't have a butt/thighs. Basically no jacket fits me. Shoes? One of my feet is a different size than the other.
I, too, have to try on literally every garment I see that sort-of-looks-like it might fit. I have tried hundreds of pairs of jeans, dress shirts, jackets. When I find one that fits, I buy two of them (or every one in a different color). And then I gain or lose weight... and the cycle repeats. I probably own 30 pairs of jeans, and a closet full of shirts that I almost never wear, but one day might want, and will never be able to find anywhere else.
Human bodies are diverse. Standard sizes don't work. But you know what will give you the perfect fit? Tailoring. Buy something too big, take it to a neighborhood drycleaner & tailor, and have them alter it to fit you. It's that simple. If you're worried about not having "enough" clothes and want to save money, it's not hard to use a sewing machine (if I learned, you can). In retrospect, I should've used tailoring rather than constantly hunt for fitting clothes. But I suspect I hunt the racks for the same reason women do: the idea that, somewhere out there, there's a better item I don't have.
I don't think there's a way to reform the fashion industry, as it produces what the market bears. You could also - and I know this is crazy, but bear with me - wear ill-fitting clothes. Your gender doesn't have to constantly strive to be attractive. We will be into you regardless. And if you're just trying to live up to your own gender's expectations... maybe it's not a great expectation.
It's a similar situation for taller men (6'1" and up).
All t-shirt sizing is completely wrong for me. I have a longer torso and broader shoulders than anything in standard sizing. Some "big and tall" sizes fit my shoulders and are long enough, but then are also insanely baggy because I'm apparently not fat enough.
[deleted]
This post is about women’s sizing, not men’s sizing. I’d love to see a followup post by someone doing the same analysis for men’s sizing, though!
Women's sizing got bad first, and is worse today, but men's sizing is already moving fast down the same road.
This crap affects all of us and awareness that we're all in the same boat is a good thing.
This is the first pudding article that does not feel as polished. Scrolling down the spacing between legends within the data visualizations are not good. Some text doesn't even appear (cut off from the top on the torso visualizations). My font size is increased by like 150% thru the OS but my zoom is still 100%.
Good content tho.
[dead]
[deleted]
[dead]
As a male who has been on both ends of the spectrum (morbidly obese) and 'fit' / bodybuilder I find the whole discussion about size, clothing, weight, vanity, etc incredibly boring.
Buy whatever clothes you're comfortable in and take steps to not be obese, and uninstall social media while you're at it. It really is that simple.
[deleted]
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we've already asked you repeatedly to stop.
I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we're going to end up doing that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
I’d argue this problem is more important than most of the tech articles on this site. Having well-fitted clothing is a massive quality of life improvement.
ah yes, clothes not fitting, a famously bourgeoisie problem /s
As somebody with an atypical body shape, not being able to find things that fit is an endless source of irritation and discomfort
Does the author know she is allowed to put down the cake and go for a jog? You'll feel better, look better, live better.
A lot of companies don't want you and your HAES friends in their clothes. The healthy, attractive women who respect their bodies and health enough to conform to regular sizing are walking billboards for their brand.
It's harsh but maybe the obese should feel a little uncomfortable in public. Evidently some are shameless and impervious to accountability for their lifestyle choices that have led them to writing blog posts self-righteously seething about other people not retooling factories to accommodate their gargantuan waistlines.
This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing!
I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
This is, to be clear, a sincere question - not a veiled argument against OP or anything! It seems like there are probably some structural or psychological or market forces stopping that from happening and I'd love to understand them. Same with the "womens clothes have no pockets" thing!
>Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
Because
- in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine. Some might fit slightly better or worse, but unless you have very special body shape (and even extreme thick/overweight/tall/short are covered by niche brands) you can get in any clothes store and get plenty of clothes to wear
- some random brand making something that fits better doesn't mean any sizeable consumer percentage is going to buy it. First because see above, and also because a lot of clothes purchases are about brand and fashion and status signalling, not mere fit.
- if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only". Obviously brands for thicker and even obese people also exist, but they're seen as a brand of need, not a brand you'd be proud having to wear
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only"
The elephants in the room from the raw data is it is very clear some brands do not want average middle aged women wearing their products. Anthropology seems to be the most clear about this in that they have a literal gap between their standard and plus-sized ranges that excludes the adult median woman.
Now some brands might do that out of snobishness, but I expect there is a feedback loop here:
1) Young, attractive women want to make fashion choices that signal they are young, attractive women.
2) They buy from fashion lines that don't fit average adult women.
3) Average adult women detect that the fashionable choice is these brands and feel left out, because a fair number of them would also like to be young and attractive again. And a small but significant fraction feel really left out if some clothing brand calls them a size 20 waist / fat / shaped like a rectangle. Clothing brands detect this in their customer studies and respond appropriately.
4) People who just want clothes buy from H&M or wherever and don't write articles about how hard it is to fit clothes.
"Women" isn't really a homogeneous category when it comes to clothing, there is ongoing fierce competition between lots of different sub-groups of the female population to signal lots of different things. Men have it a bit easier because there is basically a 4-quadrant choice between upper & lower class, formal & casual with a lot of intricacy for people who care a lot about what brand of black leather shoe they own. Young girls are closer to men in that they aren't really trying to signal anything at that age, so clothing fits are a lot easier to manage.
> Clothing brands detect this in their customer studies and respond appropriately.
Respond how?
> lots of different sub-groups of the female population to signal lots of different things
Signal what?
> you can get in any clothes store and get plenty of clothes to wear
"Getting into the clothes" is a low bar. I can get into this brown paper bag. Comfort is underrated.
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".
Heh I think mens sizing signals the opposite: too skinny = insufficiently masculine.
Its only a problem for online shopping. In store you can simply grab multiple sizes and see which one fits best. Many online stores try to give multiple measurements of the clothes but even then it's extremely difficult to predict how it will look on you.
Online shoppers seem to solve this issue by just buying multiple items and returning the ones that don't fit. After which the retailer throws these returns in the bin.
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".
This is how many brands originally blow up and grow famous. Especially in Asia.
You make clothing in sizes only extremely slim people can wear.
This is an extremely popular brand that specifically does this, and it's hardly the only one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandy_Melville
In the "THe VILLaIN aRC oF VANiTY SiZINg" section, vanity sizing is framed as marketing strategy which is successful because of the psychology around that - linking out to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10577... for more detail.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time the most profitable marketing strategy is unrelated to aligning with what's optimal for the consumer.
Translating the confusing science speak, basically:
Appearance self-esteem takes a hit when they don't fit in a size. They take it out on the clothes: "I hate their stuff, they suck." They buy more of other stuff to compensate for the hit, whether non-sized accessories (I am pretty) or book/tech (I am smart even if I don't fit).
People confident in their appearance are immune to the effect, and simply think it's sized wrong or runs small.
I am genuinely curious as to which words in the cited are 'confusing science speak' in your view.
Having read the article, I can't venture a guess without feeling condescending...non-conforming? Compensatory?
Legitimately confused.
They use precise but indirect terminology e.g., "heightened level of appearance self-esteem" rather than "confident in their appearance".
Indirect phrasing e.g., "they respond more favorably to products that can help to repair their damaged appearance self-esteem" rather than something direct and easy to understand like "they feel bad that they don't fit, so they end up buying other things like makeup/jewelry to feel better about their appearance".
Maybe it's me, but only the first quote seems cumbersome, and wasn't very cumbersome in the article when I read it in context.
”I had no issues with complex sentence structure, therefore the whole planet is fluent in english and college-level literate”
Simpler language is an accessibility issue
I think they read the full paper rather than the snippets and agree most couldn't tell you what Cronbach's alpha is, how ANOVA works, or otherwise accurately interpret the meaning of the results sections in a casual read through. One can grab the full paper on resources such as Anna's Archive if they don't have access via a university or such.
Of course, the trick (once you know) is you don't need a comment summarizing it for you. The abstract is alright in a pinch, but the "General Discussion" in psychology papers is the equivalent of "Conclusion" and aims to discuss the results directly. It's still a bit verbose... but the language should at least be very familiar in comparison.
Of course education could help about this and other psychologically manipulative tactics by corps but such kind of education is heavily frowned upon for being seeing as anti-capitalist and (more propagandistic) as un-american, so there is zero of such kind of education.
Thankfully, for most people on Earth, the prospect of seeming "Un-American" is not relevant. It's also not a problem to argue against free-market economies - see Austria's second biggest city (Graz), which has an elected mayor from the communist party.
These seem like uniquely U.S.-American issues.
I mourn for the retreat of critical reasoning skills from modern U.S. early education systems.
That's what sizing guides are theoretically for, if you add more sizing systems it gets even more confusing. I don't think the issue is as bad as the post portrays it though. Its true that sizes can be all over the place but like I am size small woman's and if I buy small most of the time it will fit or at least somewhat fit. I am not a standard model size either as I need things that are for more hourglass figure rather than straight but that just requires being selective about which styles to buy. A medium also usually fits if I need something looser. I double check the reviews if its online or try it on in person and as long as its not something that requires precise measurements its usually fine. For things like jeans I shop in person and try things on from a few sizes or just know approximate size I am or rely on reviews. Many items these days are stretchy and even when they don't fit perfectly they are wearable or you can return them, its not that complicated. I do only shop a few brands or from in person stores or I can often approximate sizing from how big something looks or by looking at review photos.
The pockets thing is similar, not having pockets is annoying but its not that big of a deal. I rather buy something cute without pockets than search for something with some. If it has them great, if it doesnt oh well I will just use my purse. Barely anything fits in pockets anyways and I have a feeling other women feel similarly which is why many of us buy things whether or not they have pockets.
I'm pretty sure everyone who cares about getting a good fit (and isn't simply trying the clothes on in person) is looking at measurements, which you can usually find for any half-decent vendor (though it may take some poking around their site). The best have it per-garment (or per-cut), less-good but usually still alright is having a guide to the measurements they base their sizing off of.
Even guys can't really get away with just "Small, Medium, Large" if they want a decent fit that they can predict from just the label. Modifiers for the cut become necessary (regular, slim, relaxed, extra-slim, that kind of thing). And that's for clothes that are pretty forgiving on the fit, like knits...
Women's clothes are even trickier. It's basically impossible to boil them down to one or even two size metrics or labels unless you're relying on a shitload of stretch in every other part of the garment, which is something that usually only very bad garments do (think: Temu). Women's proportions are also far more variable. Shoulder-bust-waist-hip often sees some pretty wild differences, like two women will match on a couple of those measurements and be way far apart on the others. Then you've got height to worry about. Dudes can be similarly far outside the norm of distributions for the relations between their key measurements, but it's not as common—most of us have it relatively easy.
Looking at the actual measurements, though, I've found to be very reliable. I buy almost all my clothes on eBay and directly from brands on their websites, with great success, because I know both my own key measurements, and the dimensions of clothes that fit me well (I have some notes, doesn't take a lot of data points to have enough to be pretty accurate). I've also ordered for my wife with a similar strategy, works well there, though you're way more likely to run into cases of "OK there are zero sizes of this garment that will work for you, just gotta give up on this one" because of the issue above.
Ironically, one area that both genders can have trouble with is crotch seam length, though typically on opposite sides of the garment — but in women’s clothing it’s often worse than men’s due to the spectrum of “extra high rise” to “extra low rise” that’s added to the mix in women’s clothing. Aligning with the hourglass-mostly point of the article, the most common is High Rise, which corresponds to the higher ‘resting point’ on the torso cylinder for a waistband when women have gained fat deposits in the usual rearward hourglass places (as otherwise the waistband sits at a severely sloped angle from back to front). For rectangle or triangle folks, you will rarely find Low Rise or Extra Low Rise that have the appropriately-shortened crotch seam. For spoon folks, you have to shop at shops that cater to spoon shape, because most major retailers only cater to one specific shape and stretch simply isn’t enough to compensate for the rectangular to spoon difference (as Lululemon discovered a decade ago or so). That’s because two women with upper leg circumference 30 may have hip sizes varying from 20 to 60, depending on which body type they have and where their fat deposits are — and the two ends of that spectrum do not indicate anorexia/obesity, either. Body shape and fat levels vary that widely under normal healthy circumstances. I envy men’s jeans for their (relative, but not zero) simplicity.
Now that is an interesting dimension (ha, ha) of this I hadn't yet appreciated. I'm used, as a dude of fortunately-normalish proportions and skinny-enough (but not actually skinny) size, to only looking at a single measurement for rise (crotch to waist, measured on the front of the garment) and getting a really good idea of what I'll be dealing with, just from that. From your description I think I've understood the issue you're highlighting, and yeah, that'd be an annoying extra factor to deal with (and I'm sure it's really hard to get two rise measurements out of anybody, just about ever).
You've got me thinking back to a particular brand and style of (not at all fancy) jeans my wife used to love, that they discontinued, and she's never quite found another that works for her as well. From how she described it, in hindsight, I bet this measurement is the key thing she's not managing to nail on her attempts to find a replacement. Wish she still had a pair, I'd go measure front- and back-rise on them so we'd know what to look for!
If only there was an Anna's Archive for retail clothing dissected into clothing patterns..
> Women's clothes are even trickier
Oh that explains why my wife spends so much time obsessing over clothes: trying clothes, buying/returning, buying others, etc. I'm sure a few others can relate.
And she's got a very normal BMI: not underweight, just plain in the middle (5'5" / 124 lbs: something like that) and a very hour-glassy/feminine shape, so many clothes are "made" to her shape/size/weight. I can't imagine what it'd be if she had uncommon "dimensions".
[delayed]
I wonder if understanding a particular brand's sizing drives up repeat purchases.
Yes. This is specifically a driver for having brand-specific sizing: knowing what size I am in Wooland Jade does nothing whatsoever to help me assess a potentially cheaper option in Uniqlo Whatever. It's the same lock-in effect as cloud APIs, only implemented through attributes instead. Imagine the chaos in the guitar market if the "bass" in "bass guitar" had up to +/-25% variation between guitar manufacturers — it would be a total nightmare trying to cross-shop guitars away from your current one, and lots of people would just end up glued to a brand so they don't have to do the hard work of assessing 'is this within +/-5% of the bass that fits me now'.
Yes but it’s multiple dimensions other than just waistline. e.g Some brands make boxier shirts and others use longer cuts.
Because “my style” prefers one over the other, I know when I buy from a certain brand so it’s going to fit on me better.
If if waistlines were standardized it wouldn’t really account for all the other measurements.
There's also different definitions of waistline size. Pant sizes "lie" because historically most pants sat further up your waist, now that many of them sit on your hips, they give you a measurement as if they were still sitting higher up so you can compare between the fits with the same number.
Really the only bulletproof solution here is to just go try them on in store and see which fits best.
I think the market opportunity can be a standard and eventually get labels to include your standard in addition to their traditional labeling.
Figure out the variables (like shape, inseam, width, whatever else) for each article of clothing. Then freely distribute this and begin to catalog popular items. You can crowdsource some of this. The idea is people will look up the clothes as per your scale.
Then after you index a lot of clothes, you can search by exact measurements and then you can hit up clothing manufacturers to use their propriety code in their marketing or promote their brands on your site.
As a bloke I think I can see one reason why - I buy sports kit the model looks good in but I won’t. Every damn time! Then end up buying again.
People buy heavy SUV when compact car would do, "dress for the job you want", "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", nationalistic fervor for your country getting more territory when even with the current one you don't know what to do, and so forth... Humans are an aspirational animal, and it is pretty easy to sell into that aspiration be it a ticket to Moon or a nice looking on the model jacket :)
To the commenter below:
Exactly. The societies where aspirations have been dampened or completely suppressed have been collectivistic and/or totalitaristic - USSR, North Korea, etc. - ie. where individual will is totally suppressed.
Mankind is aspirational when we are allowed to act as individuals. The silent majority has a different character because it's a simpler animal.
>"Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the others do not.
I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the incumbents. I would have figured the convenience of being able to store a device that people have their heads down in 95% of the time would be sufficient to supersede more vanity related motivations.
In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans where the pocket is well designed the phone still sticks out of the top and yet when I bend my knee it jams into my hip in a weird way or I cant sit down with it in my pocket. I am 5'1 so I may just be hitting some size limitations but carrying around a phone in a purse or sticking it into the waistband of tighter pants can be more comfortable than trying to use pockets.
Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.
I'm a big fan these days of a small crossbody bag (aka a sling bag). MY problem is that the pockets on my pants are too large and loose and I don't want to worry about things absently falling out when I sit.
Uniqlo makes a solid one for $25. It's light, comfortable, and unobtrusive. Admittedly, it's not ideal for all styles or situations, but I love that it's large enough for items that are definitely too large or uncomfortable for a pocket, like a book, small notebook, or an accessory.
https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/products/E486766-000/00?colorDi...
I started bringing a crossbody bag and now I find I drag half the house everywhere like one of those every day carry people because why not, it's so easy to carry stuff compared to using pockets. Very useful to have a battery bank and cables with you.
In women's clothes, if you're trying to target Generic Woman, you often have to put deep pockets somewhere other than the front of thigh, because for various compositional reasons that area isn't reliably available across women's various body shapes. This is how we ended up with one of the coolest innovations in pockets since leggings: the side leg pocket. Everyone has a side leg. You can put a pocket there and it's perceptually irrelevant to people. Some of my skirts have pockets designed along these same lines that can hold an entire Nintendo Switch with controllers attached and it's effectively invisible if I'm sitting in a chair, because no one notices when my thighs are a bit thicker on one side. In leggings it's blindingly obvious that there's a phone there, but leggings are typically bodycon-tight to begin with, so I just view it as "yup, that's a phone pocket" when I even remember where I put my phone at all.
back waist pocket = mind blown
standard back pocket = disaster
I've ripped quite a few pants (2? 3?) getting up when the phone in the back pocket gets caught on something. And these were pants I considered "heavy duty".
side-leg pocket = ungainly
Knees and by extension thighs move more than hips, and so items in side pockets tend to bounce around and pull down the waistline, when normally they wouldn't in regular pockets.
In my opinion the best pocket is the breast pocket on jackets and heavier garments. I guess if I were a cop I'd prefer the shoulder holster.
If you think you can pull it off, I've become a strong proponent of blazers and sport coats. I call them "wearable purses for men".
For me, this is basically an evolution and refinement of what I guess I've always been trying to do. As a teen, I'd wear un- or partially-buttoned button-up shirts over my t-shirts. Later, zip hoodies as much of the year as I could get away with. I'd also be sad during this whole period when it'd get too warm and I couldn't get away with wearing a coat everywhere (and it got too warm for a hoodie, once I adopted those) and I'd have to go back to putting my stuff in my trouser pockets. That just sucks.
Now, I've gone to blazers and sport coats, which to me feel like a very similar idea but are wildly more practical[1] for most situations I find myself in, and most folks perceive them as looking a lot better, too.
I've found the heavier winter fabrics to be the easiest to pull off. Simple tweeds, or I've got this one really heavy but soft wool twill in grey-black that works great. Corduroy (there are wool corduroys, too!) covers fall really well, and can do for the cooler parts of spring, too.
Summer is trickier. Unlined Summer-weight wools can add effectively zero heat (and keep some of the sun off you!) but may look too formal, especially when nobody else is wearing a jacket of any kind. Really schlubby unstructured cotton, or a simple linen jacket can work without looking "too fancy", but they're a bit high-maintenance if you don't want them to look wrinkled to hell all the time. I haven't quite found what I'd call a perfect solution for me, here.
[1] Why are they more practical? A blazer or sport coat can usually dress pretty far up, and pretty far down, so has better situational range than a hoodie. I also find the pocket layout is just a ton better. My standard way to wear them is keys in left-hip, phone in right-hip, wallet in left-inner-breast. Generally, these leave tons of room in all three pockets concerned for cramming change or receipts or whatever, none of them are crowded. When traveling, I'll give a whole pocket to my passport, right-inner-breast if that one's big enough, or I might give that to my left hip if I don't need my keys (like when flying or taking a train). Sunglasses can go in the outer breast pocket. Hip pockets are usually big enough to temporarily cram leather or knit-wool gloves in, for the winter, when I need to take those off but don't have anywhere to put them, without overcrowding the pockets enough to cause a problem. I can double up my keys and a big ID/keycard in the left hip, when I need to go into the office, still not crammed tight or anything. The hip pockets are also great for those "pocket size" paperback books, and you can even fit stuff like Modern Library hardcovers in there as long as they're not super-thick volumes, especially the older editions that had smaller dimensions.
You might also appreciate research into the French accesory 'pochette', which is approximately like a women's clutch in the U.S. except without the gender-specifics (as translations 'folder' or 'case' suggest). Might have to site:fr a search in order to get ungendered results, though.
I appreciate the discussion. I'm always looking for ways to look better, although you wouldn't know it because I'm unkempt and wear old clothes. But fantasy me dresses really well.
> and keep some of the sun off you!
This has become really important to me in the last few years after I realized the impact sunlight has on people's skin (I always think of this [1] or just generally the people I know who don't care about sun exposure). I'm not sure what my ideal summer look will be since I look best in sporty clothing, but don't intend to spend long periods of time with large parts of my skin exposed to direct summer sunlight any longer. The face and back of the neck is the hardest part to fashionably keep safe.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...
So much this for consistency. I remember one particular bad occasion I went shopping for trousers in a store. I tried five, each had something wrong in relation with the size numbers.
First didn’t fit because it was too tight, so I tried one size larger. This one was even smaller than the previous one. So I tried an even bigger one which was only taller. Tried a bigger number now it was way too big. So for fun I tried one with a higher number which turned out to be smaller than the previous one.
When I asked the store assistant, they shrugged and said that was just reality and why you need to try every item individually. It has to do with how much “spare” cloth the seamstress takes when stitching the trousers together, if the original piece of cloth was even already cut to size properly.
These days I buy from the brand own size, the same item and it fits every time.
For me the back pockets are usually good enough to hold the phone when I'm walking then i just put it wherever (bag, table, bike mount, etc) the rest of the time. I wouldn't keep it in my front pocket even if it did fit.
re: consistency
https://xkcd.com/927/
I don't think that xkcd applies. I mean if I am on a clothing seller's website, and they show me a pair of pants and I add 4 colors to the cart of the same size of the same design/model number/style pants, I feel like they should all fit the same.
I mean, I get that it sucks online, but in person? Who cares what the label says? I'm an adult. I can easily tell by looking at a garment how it's going to fit me.
That said, if we could just get the critical measure online that'd be fantastic. No need for sizes, I know how big inches and centimeters are.
And, as it turns out, my favorite retailers do in fact include measurements, but I'd rather have a few quality items than lots of garbage, which is also why I own a sewing machine because sometimes I really love a dress but the manufacturer doesn't accommodate my specific frame. I developed this practice when I was broke and shopping out of thrift stores. It allowed me to buy almost anything and tailor it to make it fit. Really broadens your fashion horizons.
With regard to why sizing is difficult, I'd guess it's just consumer laziness or cognitive dissonance. Although it's maybe a little bit of efficiency too. How many models should I produce (and how many lines do I have to run) to fit every woman just right instead of lying to all of them? For pants alone, if you really want it to actually fit, you're going to need ankle, calf, knee, thigh, inseam/outseam, glute, hip, and waist (and crotch to waistband if you're offering different rises). So if you've got even just 5 measurements (probably not enough as no way do all women fit tailored within 5 different calf sizes), you've got 5^9 different products (and therefore machine configurations) to cover just that space, because yes there are women with massive calfs and small thighs or same waist/hip or whatever combination you can imagine) and that's all just for literally one style. If you've got five different pants that's immediately 5^9.
Lots of (american) women are perfectly fine with their 36in underbust but would be shamed to admit they need a 46in hip with their 32in waist for all that ass. Much better to just lie and say I need an 8 which will not in any world ever make it over my butt.
Maybe we can compromise on a 'call it' measurement which is on average 2 less than the prevailing standard would suggest. If your countries' system would have you in a 8, you can 'call it a 6', and then we're all happy.
same, I wonder why this is. Is it just that modelling / marketing is more effective with things as they presently are? It seems there is a market for better fitting clothes -- likely half (or more!) of clothes bought would make the end customer happier if the items just had a better fit. Why have financial incentives not achieved this?
If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available.
The real concern I have is how the large majority of westerners are overweight or obese. That's a serious issue way beyond the practicality of buying clothes
> If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available.
I'm a man often shopping for bike wear in Europe. I'm neither overweight or obese. The article is right that sizing is a complete mess: with my 180cm and 74kg I'm usually mass market size M in tops and L in pants because I just have a big ass (again I'm not fat, I still have a big ass when I'm 70kg during the height of the summer season). But it's often an S in tops. Anyway, in the bike brands sizing, the tops are mostly M to L.
The bike pants? I have already sent back XXL's because I just couldn't put them on. But for some brands, I'm still L, for others it's XL. The measurements don't mean anything, they are completely off quite often. The only half-usable help is customer reviews where people note their measurements and the size that fit them. Also the sizing is not only inconsistent between brands, but also for different items of the same brand.
One thing I don't really understand is the brands perspective. If someone with my measurements is forced to wear XL (and for long pants the legs are often too long as a result), what is left? Will a guy 185 cm high weighting 90kg, which is not uncommon, be forced to wear an XXXL (if they make this size, which they usually don't)? Do they look at this and think it's good sizing nomenclature?
At a previous employer this was a problem we identified (and larger retailer customers) had recognised, although for other reasons. We had developed a size recommendation system for them, that used real product measurements in every size and a method of obtaining your body measurements from fully clothed photos. We also offered a statistical average measurement set for those who couldn’t/wouldn’t take photos of themselves (privacy was important to us, and there was no need to undress).
We were able to give details about fit comfort across many measurements for each size, but this feature was basically unused. 99% of users used the statistical average body of themselves instead of themselves, which actually exacerbates the body type problem.
Another interesting thing about the industry and the grading process we learned; many retailers had no measurements for their own clothes except the reference size. This was much more common of higher end brands.
1 last thing; some global brands actually have the same size name on the same product represent a different size in different region (eg an SKU in size S in US may have different measurements to the same SKU in S in Asia)
There's also a surprising lack of consistency item-to-item. More than once I have grabbed two of the same pants (same model, same size label, next to each other on the rack) and one would fit well while the other was way too large or way too small.
Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over time.
I think this is why stretchy materials are getting more and more popular. The women in my house use stretchy pants almost exclusively, because they are much more forgiving with body shape. As long as the waist fits, the rest will fit well enough.
Mens sizes have changed over time. Go get a vintage t-shirt from the 80s, medium size, and try it on. It'll be the size of a small or xs today.
I meant more the pants and dress shirts, which are sized in inches.
> pants are sized in inches
I wish! That number is kinda-sorta-related-to inches, but it's not, at least not anymore. I wear a 31 or 32 jean, but my waist is about 34.5 inches. And any jeans which fit my thighs properly (turns out to be about size 34) will fall off my waist.
Measure your own waist and pants, see what you find!
Sizing is chaos.
>Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over time.
Relevant: TIL that while male rowers are classified as "lightweight" or "heavyweight", larger female rowers are called "openweight" instead of "heavyweight". <https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/32p2ka/til_th...>
Lightweight rowing is pretty much dead, anyways.
It was originally introduced to give countries with shorter people a chance to compete (as rowing depends a lot on height), but in practice it mainly resulted in promising candidates who didn't quite make the cut for heavyweight being forced into eating disorders.
Lightweight rowing has been cut from the olympics already, so to a lot of organisations it has lost its relevance. There are still world championships, but I bet it is only a matter of time before it'll disappear there as well.
[flagged]
To be clear, you’re advocating for women to lose the right to vote? The misogyny in this thread was disappointing already, but seeing this comment being voted up is maybe a sign I should not be on this website any more.
Voted up?
If you mean the troll post didn't immediately fade with one downvote that might just be a matter of having two accounts.
[dead]
Interesting visualizations, but I don't understand what the thesis is. To me, the conclusion says:
1. Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity, which is exclusionary.
2. Clothing size standards do not match diverse body types.
3. There is no sizing standard, and companies size however they want.
0. All commercial premade adult women’s clothing is made exclusively for a small minority of women with hourglass body shapes.
The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn’t realize as a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that clothing manufacturers exclusively market to hourglass body shape alone — which some might recognize better as “pinup model” proportions. As a non-hourglass along with the vast majority of other U.S. women, it’s quite the shock to discover that megacorps are targeting a fraction of the market (hourglass) rather than the largest segment (rectangle).
I think that must be fashion dependent though? I can think of plenty of women's clothes that are definitely not marketed for hourglass physiques.
Yeah I've shopped for clothes enough for my wife to know that even with an hourglass shape, you're guaranteed to find lots of pieces that're like "OK none of these sizes will work on you". Her particular problem is a small waist paired with an hourglass. Plenty of "ruler"-shaped cuts out there on the small end of waist size, that won't work for her.
I wouldn't be surprised if women of every body shape believe that clothes must be targeting some other shape, except the ones who luck into a sizing-region in which multiple body types have a lot of overlap.
I can think of three major markets right now:
Rectangle (athletics-branch brands), Hourglass (most entire fashion brands), and what I believe is Spoon but could be another shape (e.g. Kardashian).
If I want to buy something I see in Vanity Fair magazine, and it fits me, then I will be buying:
- Rectangle: athleticwear or athletics-adjacent, OR ‘petite’ sizes only
- Spoon: bodycon stretch, primarily
- Hourglass: 95% of the page surface area of the magazine
Other magazines vary this formula, but VF is representing the same three body type divisions that are endemic in U.S. clothing. I think the article fails somewhat in this regard, but I honestly don’t consider it a flaw; they make a solid point and the limited niche exceptions are explicitly ‘niche only’ in the industry in favor of hourglass. I’m pretty certain I can find one niche retailer for any given triplet of { measurements, body shape, aesthetic style } — and it’s the introduction of that third component that reveals the problem. For any given style, say plaid or paisley or bodycon or flowy or “any color that isn’t red, gray, black, or white”, given a set of measurements and a body shape, there may only be one retailer known nationwide to serve that market. Torrid and Long Tall Sally both thrive in their respective triplets’ niches, but if you want clothes that fit you and are styled differently than the one retailer offers, it’s tailoring or nothing. (Incidentally, there’s a severe labor shortage of tailors in the tailoring industry as all the skilled workers are aging out of the workforce, same as CPAs in the accounting industry, so good luck finding one at a reasonable price!)
[flagged]
4. Women are the biggest they have ever been in history.
As a 152lb American male, I weigh 11% less than the average American woman.
I just want to say that this is one of the best pieces of data journalism that I have ever seen.
I never check pudding.cool for some reason, but I always smash the link when I see one
What's also annoying is that sizes of the same clothes change. I have a pair of jeans that I ordered on Amazon in 2020. It happens to fit me great. So recently I decided to order two more of the same. I got exactly the same model with the same size on Amazon, just with different colors. But neither fit very well, they were far wider. The first one had such a horrible fit that I immediately sent it back. The other I can wear, but it's quite different from the other perfectly fitting one. Why are they doing that? It's insane.
"The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s."
I assume they mean circumference rather than diameter, but this is still a shocking increase in only 30 years. I knew the obesity epidemic was an ever-increasing problem, but this really puts it into perspective. I wonder if we'll ever fully understand the causes behind this rapid shift.
There are some theories. Most fresh food in a generic U.S. supermarket has something like 10-25% of the nutrients per pound than it used to a hundred years ago, thanks to soil depletion, so each generation has to consume more pounds of food to get the same amount of nutrients. There’s been long-standing corruption in the FDA “food pyramid” and “recommended daily allowance” systems to bias the U.S. population from recognizing that added sugar leads to obesity. And there’s the advent of chemical non-sugar sweeteners, which in recent decades are turning out to be just as harmful as sugar, only differently. Those may not fully explain obesity, but they certainly are known and understood explanations for obesity — and yet they remain wholly unaddressed.
I think the problem is not whether we’ll fully understand the causes, but more that every cause we have identified to date would require regulating corporations in profit-damaging ways to solve, and it is likely that any future causes we reveal will be the same. That’s anathema in the U.S.: profits are sacrosanct to the two primary political parties, discounting their occasional extremists who argue (correctly) that we should be regulating in favor of consumers, not profits. Typically, the desire for a ‘full’ explanation is used to delay or derail efforts to implement solutions to each single proven explanation, and so I tend to caution against pursuing a complete answer first, and instead recommend asking why we have not yet addressed the known causes while continuing to search for more.
Similar to a sibling comment,
>>the advent of chemical non-sugar sweeteners, which in recent decades are turning out to be just as harmful as sugar, only differently.
requires citations. People lump sugar substitutes together as one class of drugs, but they very much are not. Some are sugar alcohols, some are glycosides, others are different molecules. Different molecules have different mechanisms of action and paths of metabolism.
Much like one might take a "blood pressure" medication, it is a large umbrella consisting of chemically distinct ACE-inhibitors, ARBs, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, calcium channel blockers (dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine distinctly), and more. These drugs generally do have class effects, but the class effects from an ACE inhibitor (bradykinin cough, angioedema, etc) are quite different from diuretics (hyponatremia, frequent urination, etc). One person's 'blood pressure medicine' is not the same as the next.
I agree that the prevalence of sugar substitutes in the western diet demands scrutiny, and I am concerned about their effects, however any current research lumping them all together without strict attention to pharmacological mechanisms supported by translational research is worse than useless - it is misleading.
In the sense of what we 'know' about modern medicine, we 'know' almost nothing about sugar substitutes. The body of evidence is vanishingly thin. I want more research into this topic, but right now, it's just not there.
I'm not providing citations for my tangent here; it's too far off-thread and I'm investing my academic research free time into WtHR instead (see elsethread).
There is no source supporting your claim of nutrient decline in that magitude thanks to soil depletion. It's mostly due to modern crops that grow tall fast, and are thus mostly made up of water.
Some argue that it’s instead because we’ve promoted food strains that have more sugars and less nutrients, and I’m still studying that, so I have no position to offer about it yet. Brussels sprouts is a good example of doing this in a way that doesn’t damage the nutritional value, but the general U.S. avoidance of anything pungent or bitter is reflected in having bred out all of the ‘unattractive’ nutrients from our food strains. A good litmus test for this is to check for dandelion greens on the shelves; if present, the market likely sells a broad spectrum of produce that isn’t simply designed to be a sugar bomb; if absent, I’d be shocked if you found anything nutrient-dense at all.
Someone (not me obviously) should look it up, because I would think that if it was circumference, it would be "4 inches longer" not wider. Because that case, ...wow.
part of it is just raw obesity increase, but part is also an aging population. even if women today WERE the same size as women of the same age 30 years ago, the average over the total population would still be up.
Mostly though it's the obesity increase.
40% of Americans are obese, and 75% are overweight. 30 years ago only 20% were obese.
Ah, yeah, the aging population is a good point.
I can't find a citation now, but I recall reading at some point that weight gain with age (in adulthood) didn't used to happen very much before the obesity epidemic, though nowadays we take it as a given. I wish I could find a source for/against that idea, I'm curious now if it's true.
>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average waist size is 38.5 inches (98 centimeters) for women older than 20 in the United States.2 This represents an increase of roughly two inches since the 1990s, reflecting broader trends in rising rates of obesity and metabolic conditions.3 Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Mean Body Weight, Height, Waist Circumference, and Body Mass Index Among Adults: United States, 1999-2000 Through 2015-2016. Natl Health Stat Report. 2018;(122):1-16.
https://www.health.com/average-waist-size-for-women-11796627...
So these sizes (kid, teen, adult) are kind of ridiculous on their own, and combined with the different international systems even more. If you look at the tongue of a pair of a pair of sneakers for example, sometimes there will be four different numbers for international markets.
I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind.
DJT would slap 86% tariff on any imported good only shown sizing in centimeters so this better be inches :)
>I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind.
Funny you should mention shoes, because this is exactly what european shoe sizes are. It's really just a case of, yet again, Americans stick with an ass-backwards system (inches/pounds/feet, fahrenheit, etc.) when the rest of the world has settled on something much more logical and reasonable.
If we can have mass produced fast fashion from runway to store in weeks...
Why not tailored clothing at scale? Have a set of portable body measurements that can be sent to any retailer - make an order and have it sent from factory to door in a week or two.
Or get a size that is close enough - bring it to your neighborhood tailor. Most alterations are simple and not very expensive.
Unfortunately sizing is just a leaky abstraction. You are trying to distill many variables into a single dimension. It will never be particularly great.
> bring it to your neighborhood tailor. Most alterations are simple and not very expensive.
I think, this is a misconception, some "simple" things like resizing a shirt, when done properly, might require multiple hours + a decent amount of skills and the alterations might be cheap because they are performed by underpaid workers. Nonetheless, I like the idea of supporting local tailors and I'd be in for paying premium for a local premium product.
If sizes were updated to, say, 14Z, where Z is a common industry-wide body shape code, then it would be vastly simpler to find clothing that fits — and people who were a 22 before might now be a 16S, once the clothes are proportioned properly for their non-hourglass body.
The problem underlying this is that retailers do not want to advertise for more than one body shape, because that not only reduces their total profit (9x the models hired, 9x the designs to create, more complicated size ranges than simply blowing up a size 6 design with a photocopier), it also would force everyone in the industry to be revealed all at once as cheaping out on design and production, once the use of H for hourglass spread (since anyone who isn’t using a letter code is obviously Hourglass Only, based on the data). Corporations have multiple strong financial incentives not to do this, and their shareholders would revolt and fire any CEO who tried to reduced profits by incurring massive increases in design cost, product variants, model staffing, and retail/online logistics for the sake of “unattractive” non-hourglass women.
I think the EU’s “no more shredding clothes” initiative is going to have some very interesting ramifications over the next few years, as clothing manufacturers will have to choose between seeing people buy their unsold inventory at the local equivalent to Goodwill here in the U.S., or have to start selling clothing “made to order” with only a limited quantity kept in the store for try-on purposes. Apple, weirdly, already has a perfect logistics pipeline for exactly this approach; you can get an off-the-shelf option in stores, or you can customize it in eight to ten different ways and get something labeled “CTO” — Custom To Order. But that’s not a cheap logistics pipeline for a company that only has to set the copier inflation percentage based on your size choice today — the designs are for size 6 and then they blow it up by 140% for size 10 or whatever (yes, seriously, for real). So it may end up that once the clothing industry has to start making clothing on-demand, they will quickly expand into more options than the “print a ream of t-shirts and try to sell them in 3 months” profit-maxing approach that they’ve all coalesced into today.
> have to start selling clothing “made to order” with only a limited quantity kept in the store for try-on purposes.
This is already pretty much the case. The larger retailers have been very happy to push all "tricky" sizes to the internet, and just stock a larger variety of items in a size or three in the store instead. They'd rather stock 15 items in 3 sizes each than 5 items in 9 sizes each.
If you're not the same size as the median high-volume in-person shopaholic, physical stores these days are closer to a catalog to browse through combined with a post office for pickup.
Combine that with today's fast fashion, and I wouldn't be surprised if some sizes are only being manufactured in the dozens or low-hundreds quantities!
I believe that they're still issuing 'complete production run orders' behind the scenes, and only selling the items on the website once they arrive at the logistics warehouse — in the cases where they haven't made the item yet, they indicate 'preorder' or 'ships in X months', because cargo ships are slow and they're neither paying for air freight nor producing garments domestically. Otherwise you'd see every retailer taking days-to-weeks to initiate a shipment after the order is placed — either it would have been marked 'preorder' (or 'out of stock' after overselling it) because you're being committed an item from a general pool that hasn't been produced yet, or it's from in-stock inventory with JIT replenishment, or MTO/CTO and a production-line allocation is taken aside for your order before it reaches the general pool.
I can't wait for a world where order production, inventory, shipping, and returns are all connected by electric cargo drones that fly containers back and forth using solar power — but this also highlights a critical weakness of 'globalization': when your production, retail, shipping, and returns are all colocated within the same small region, you can do JIT or MTO/CTO with a vastly simpler logistics chain. It's why Walmart sells local farmers' eggs at their stores: eggs are an incredibly annoying food to put through a logistics chain, so if you're JIT replenishment like Walmart is, you want to replenish from the closest possible source of eggs — and that's why In'n'out Burger is only in certain areas of the U.S., too, directly corresponding to whether they can get beef at their target price including transportation costs. American Apparel understood this and did relatively well on it for quite some time, until they collapsed for (checks notes) opening hundreds of retail stores using debt and filing for bankruptcy. Don't count your chickens until the eggs have hatched, indeed.
There is an unmet market niche for tailoring with the 'construct the garment from measurements' stage automated, but critically not the human in the loop during initial measurement, construction, updating one's measurements, and so forth. It was critically important when I was having a corset made to ensure that the folks making the corset took my ribcage angle into account, and they didn't have a 'standard' measurement for that, but they were able to ensure that the construction team had it accounted for. That corset cost four digits because a team of humans spent two months sewing it, and for a corset, that's not something you can currently license or build automated production for. It's a 100% CTO garment sold by a 100% CTO shop, because you cannot non-custom a perfectly-fit corset — and an imperfect fit is fine for occasional use for people in the relevant medians, but most people buying a corset are not in those medians. So, tying this back to the main point, if that shop had offered a service for "we'll also make you some shirts", I would have bought them by the truckload because they would be, bar none, the best-fitting shirts I've ever worn. They didn't, because their production capacity was both hyperspecialized and limited, which is fine. But considering mechanical automation lines versus where to use human beings for their competences, I think one hour per few years of labor paid to someone to measure me and make sure they get it right, plus the cost of the machine-production time for the garments, would be world-changing.
Even if the garments are machine-printed and machine-cut and then machine-assisted sewn by humans, building out the CTO logistics backend of Apple's computer ordering processes, combined with an in-person competent human tailor to translate "my concerns" into "less stretch, more structure" and a production team to translate "more structure" into "use a more complex dart structure and use the -5% stretch fabric"? It wouldn't be hand-sewn, but it would fit, and that would devastate a great deal of business that today is grudgingly conceded to hourglass-exclusive retailers where no alternative yet exists.
That article mentions that custom tailoring can often cost more than the article itself.
We do. For men it's brands like Proper Cloth and for women it's Eshakti or creators on Etsy
Bad news about Eshakti, the company shut down and didn’t deliver many outstanding orders.
I might have missed this in the scroll format but is there any reason not to drop the qualitative size names and just use an actual dimension or two?
I would have said that this is covered under vanity sizing. I have the feeling some consumers might be more inclined to buy a product if it has size M instead of XXL, even if the product is exactly the same. So my take is that, in the name of profit, companies lie about size.
There is a problem with the number of dimensions. Even a t-shirt is described best in neck, chest, waist, and you could add several parameters for sleeves and also for heights. Neither consumers nor manufacturers can really handle the combinatorial explosion, so you have to boil it down to one or maybe two dimensions.
But the reason even that isn't done is mostly history and market expectations. There are clothing categories that sell in actual dimensions, and (aside from the terrible dimensional accuracy of clothing in general) it works fine. But those are all on the "men's" side, and it seems the industry believes women will not like buying based on actual numbers.
Sizing accuracy would definitely be an improvement, but it would shine a spotlight on the core issue that clothing manufacturers are hiding from consumers: they only produce hourglass shaped clothing and ignore the vast majority of body types altogether. If everyone’s sizing was 48-38-48-15 (bust-waist-hip-crotch) rather than L/XL/2XL, at least it would be a lot simpler to write a search engine for it — but there has, in the past century’s history, been extreme hostility from U.S. women in finding that their bodies are changing shape as they age, and so retailers are forced to choose between a sharp drop in profits by telling the truth, or making it difficult to cross-shop between different retailers. As no regulations exist around this, they appear to uniformly choose the latter.
Yeah it's weird that mens pants and womens bras have numerical sizing but other womens clothing doesn't.
They can lie with those too: https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/8srelb/info_graph...
It is genuinely incredible how well-fitting clothing is only generally available to some one-third of women who fit well into the anticipated height-waist ratio. Petite options exist in some places, but god forbid you're tall - your choices will be limited to "too short" and "too short and also too wide" if you try to go for a size up.
Skewing that further is the single length ratio of inseam to torso that a retailer's clothing is fit for. If you have short(er) legs and long(er) torso (than the median), you're doubly screwed, both in tops and bottoms; pants will flop past your feet and shirts won't reach your waist. The world is gradually starting to figure this out, but you typically only find 'tunic' (with its higher length-to-waist ratio) in a very few retailers at all.
Very cool visualization, worked great on firefox mobile too which isn't always the case with these types of things.
Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)
Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear, mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor intensive.
I've had some athletic wear with "seamless" features, but after sometime the adhesive lets go. Fixing that at home is much more difficult than needle/thread fixes for normal stitches. To be honest, I never even realized it was "seamless" until the adhesive failed. It had no factor in my purchasing.
why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape? I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?
> why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape?
Woven fabrics are naturally rectangular because they're made of a 2D grid of fibers at 90° angles to each other. The easiest (cheapest) way to make an irregular shape out of a woven fabric is to make a rectangle and cut it down.
> I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?
Knit garments usually have some amount of seaming, but yes, you have a lot of options to make irregular shapes when knitting.
However, knitting machines tend be most efficient and making rectangular fabric. They can do some amount of shaping, but the labor and cost goes up.
If you want to hand knit a garment, you can make quite complex irregular shapes with very little or no need for seaming. However, you're talking about two orders of magnitude more labor to make a garment. Few people want to pay $1,000 for a hand-knit sweater, so you're mostly limited to knitting it yourself or having a friend or loved one who likes you.
They can be! The key phrase to search for is “tubular weaving”.
For t-shirts you're looking for loopwheel or tubular knit.
You can manage a seamless clothing product if you are willing to have it knit on-demand for you, either by machine or by person. If you start with how [1] socks are made, then consider how to decompose your clothes into sock-shapes, you'll find:
Shirts: one tube sock for the torso, two tube socks for the arms, zero ends closed; Pants: two tube socks for the legs, one tube sock for the torso, zero ends closed; Gloves: five tube socks for the appendages, one tube sock for the palm, zero-to-five ends closed depending on fingerless style; Socks: one tube sock with one end closed; Hats: one tube sock with one end closed.
So it's entirely possible to construct a sock weaving pattern that ends up weaving a head-to-toe single garment for you out of some kind of stretchy yarn, that you would then have to figure out how to clamber into through the face hole (since that's the only open-ended sock) — but that coverall (literally!) pattern would have to be constructed for your complete set of measurements [2] in every regard, and that's an exceedingly costly amount of labor (measurement, knitting, measurement, unraveling, repeat). You can scale down that cost for seamless tops or bottoms somewhat, which you'll absolutely see high-fashion retailers do, but at the end of the day it's the cost of bespoke-tailored clothing from scratch plus the cost of bespoke-knit fabric from scratch plus the cost of not getting it exactly right the first time. None of this is intended to criticize your desire — I hate awful seams and I have collected clothing that has seams that don't bother me and/or are extravagantly seams because the sweater was intentionally panel-knit inside-out! — but I wanted to offer a bit of depth into why it's difficult to find seamless. You have to start and end the knit somewhere, and that's exponentially simpler if you start and end the knit more than once; thus, seams.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_7Limzg3O60 or https://blog.tincanknits.com/2013/10/03/socks/
[2] https://cwandt.com/products/personal-body-unit-index makes the point nicely enough, though I believe you need Even More And Different measurements for tailoring [3] that were out of scope for this particular creation:
> Che-Wei’s Mom often does this weird finger walking dance along the edges of furniture, fabric or random stuff. She knows that the span of her hand from thumb to pinky measures 18cm. So she can quickly size things up. We always thought this was funny, until we realized it was GENIUS and started to copy her. We made Personal Body Unit Index so we can be more like Che-Wei’s Mom.
[3] Men's tailoring measurements are generally optimized for a couple dozen taken at most; further variability gets handled through 'adjustments' or 'on the fly' rather than formally at the construction stage. I think I can identify a couple dozen measurements just on my torso alone — just the bust is an entire three-dimensional construct that has to be measured over, across, under, rise, attachment shape, attachment height and width, volume, not to mention desired support/lift/shaping, and that's before we even get to the usual waist-hips-butt conglomerate, torso/arm length, shoulder width, upper/lower arm width that men are familiar with, and the perhaps less-familiar belly shape/distribution (it isn't always above-the-belt as is typical for men) and front abdomen curve shape (often without a certain male sexual characteristic, often with varying fat pattern distributions, see also belly).
What a lovely website, and the torso silhouette sizing diagrams are invaluable.
I'm not the target demographic, but the main problems I have are proportions not simply waistsize. I was under the impression a size range [xs,s,m,l,xl] was supposed to adjust girth (bust, waist, hip, thigh) while leaving the vertical measurements unchanged (inseam, rise). Because nothing fits, I purchase a sizing range with the intention to keep just one and return the rest. It makes for pretty funny discussions: $500 on <clothing> WTF! Anyway I've started measuring clothing dimensions and have found that the brands I shop generally tend to adjust other dimensions in a 2:1 girth:height ratio. This means that if I want a snug waistline I'll have a tight crotch or be forced to wear pants on or below the hip. Now I like wearing pants somewhere between waist and hip. There's a band of fat/padding/sinew (?) just above the hips that makes for the sweet spot in terms of comfort and utility. I don't understand clothing that's meant to sit on the hips... so uncomfortable.
As a rule of thumb I tend to shop Asian clothing stores in the US because they tend to better fit my proportions, but lately it's become hit-or-miss, i.e uniqlo. I've also got some pretty weird proportions due to my exercise regimen.
Also you've got to love brands that don't provide actual sizes. Wtf!
Size ranges are almost always infuriating. I sample my measurements throughout the day to get an accurate range and average. This is invariably what occurs:
store sizes: x1-x2, x3-x4, x5-x6
me: x2-x3
Infuriating! Ranges suck!
Then there's this little unexplained morsel:
> The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s.
Their data is drawn from the US, so I'm wondering if this is related to the obesity epidemic, or a general change in silhouette. I was under the impression that historically, humans are trending taller and skinnier.
As a short adult male (5'5" - 165cm), it's always been difficult to find pants or jeans with a 28" inseam. Surprisingly, AmazonBasics line of clothes is one of the few mass produced consumer brands that has this size. Niche alternatives like Peter Manning are expensive, so it's great Amazon does this.
In theory, the claim in pants from retailers over time was that you could "just get them hemmed" — but if your jeans shape is bootcut or flare, then the leg curves sewn into the fabric will be in the wrong places for your knees, and/or you'll end up hemming off the flare. This gets especially frustrating in women's fashion because bell bottoms are popular, and there's no way to hem them without losing the 'bell' at the 'bottom' of the leg — but retailers only produce them in specific waist-inseam pairings, and so if you want to wear nice jeans with a nice flare, you have to get very lucky in finding them (especially if you're low-rise!) if they happen to exist at all.
Here's an article from 2002 talking about how we could just have data-based sizing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/the-year-in-idea...
Great visualizations but you can't buy a shoe without knowing that a 10 in one brand is not a 10 in a second brand or that for example you need to size down when ordering Dr. Martens then there is no way to expect clothing to be more accurate than a shoe.
Sure, not every shoe brand is equal, but if I know I'm a 9, I can generally start there and find a shoe plus/minus a half size. I have yet to go into a store and wind up in a shoe that is 3 sizes larger than what I thought my size was. Or 3 sizes smaller. Or a size 8 in one shoe from a brand and a 10 different shoe. I can order Nike/Jordan brand shoes without trying them on and they fit. Have done it for years.
I went to re-buy the "same" jeans ~8 months after my initial purchase and the size I was wearing didn't fit in the new jeans. Tried another pair with a different wash and was back to the original size. I have tried on jeans from the same brand with similar cuts and came away two sizes apart. I can swing several sizes as a starting point between some stores. I get it, not every jean is going to be identical, but it isn't a ridiculous ask to be able to have a size I can start at and be within a size of what I need.
Anecdotally, I discovered recently that I’m a full three sizes down in Vivobarefoot shoes versus normal shoes — but for a really interesting reason. It turns out that modern runner’s shoes actually are often shaped like a foot, rather than like a spatula, and so now that I don’t have to size up for my toebox width thanks to them creating shoes that are foot shaped in disregard to fashionable propriety, I now fit much better into a 3-sizes smaller shoe than I did into their older shoes at my prior size.
Part of why retailers are afraid to change sizing is that lots of women install their clothing into their ego and brag about it socially. I don’t approve, but I recognize the extrinsic cultural circumstances* that pressure them to do so. It’s a a lot harder to brag about being a size 49-42-48–8-30 than it is to brag about being a 20UK. (The /22 in 20/22 UK, the common size these days, is silent, because size lying is normalized.)
It would make more sense instead for them to choose an anchor measurement and a body type modifier; but that gets into the problems of having to annotate nine different body type letters onto a numeric size, not to mention having to design clothing that looks good on nine different body types, and having to hire models of nine different body types. The modeling industry is unprepared to staff that need, too!
* The phrase “pinup-hourglass male-gaze body-shape imposed-ideal” serves as an excellent starting point for research on that nightmare. For those unfamiliar, ask your friends who are women about that exact phrase, and remember to listen rather than critique their potentially-lengthy reply. I’m focusing on the sizing discussion and leave that topic as an exercise for the reader.
Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative marketing?
And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right?
edit: Really should have used the /s, I guess - women's clothing has some appalling aspects to it, one of which is notoriously tiny pockets, which is a source of frustration for many women. For some, it even comes as a shock when they find out men can do things like put phones in their pockets.
The emotional manipulation surrounding many women's products is a different beast entirely from what men experience, generally.
You're not supposed to talk about this. Someone I used to know was fired from the New York Times for saying too much about it.[1][2]
[1] https://fashionschooldaily.com/cintra-wilson-vs-jc-penney-th...
[2] https://archive.is/md8qw
a good supplement for this is the Articles of Interest episode on plus size clothing: https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/plus-sizes
Men's clothes have gone through the same process over the course of my lifetime. For instance, I wear the same brand and size of jeans that I did in college. The waist size back then was broadly accurate to the actual size in inches, but today, thirty years on, I weigh ~20lbs more, and that waist "measurement" has up-sized along with me. I guess it's meant to flatter me, but is it really fooling anyone? I guess, based on other's comments in this thread, that it does, and vanity sizing works, which is just sad.
(Then there are men's "relaxed" fits, which bear even less relationship to actual measurements. Maybe "slim" sizing is closer to the old system? Even when they fit my waist - like, six nominal inches bigger than standard! I'm not that much wider - they don't fit my legs, so I don't know.)
None of that's anywhere close to as ridiculous as women's sizing, but give 'em time and I'm sure it will be.
The simplest brand to buy men’s clothes for me is Levi’s: their sizes correspond exactly to the waist circumference in inches. Example: https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/jeans-by-fit-number/men/jeans/...
It’s basically the only brand where I can buy online without trying it on, and still be confident that it will fit as expected.
My own experience with men's jeans in recent times has been that the waist size is accurate, but the fit type is critical. I won't fit into any type of "slim fit" and "regular fit" needs to be one waist size up. "Relaxed fit" or its newer cousin "athletic fit" each work for me perfectly. That has been the case for two brands of jeans, at least.
I have a pair of men's jeans. If I lay them flat, while buttoned, and measure the width of the cloth with a cloth measure, I get 16.5", so roughly a 33" circumference. They're a 32"x34" size pair, … so that's basically spot on.
Note that, at least AIUI, the measurement printed on the pair is the wearer's waist measurement, so we thus expect the measured circumference of the top of the jeans to be slightly wider, since men's jeans are not intended to sit at the waist.
The outer measurement will also be larger than the inner. If your waist measures precisely 32", a 32" outer-measurement waistband (sans some stretch) will be too snug.
While I don't disagree, the fabric is a few millimeters thick. I think there's more error in my measurement with a cloth measure with them laid on the bed than the inner vs. outer diameter.
Women have it much worse but it’s the same with men’s clothes.
A “large” men’s shirt from Uniqlo is totally different from a “large” from Volcom and so on. Start making your own clothes and realize there’a a thousand dimensions to a shirt and “waistline” is barely scratching the surface.
Don’t get me started on shoes, especially if you have wide feet. Something like “wide” means totally different things. Unlike clothes, poorly fitting shoes will absolutely destroy you.
At least pants have WxL.
I’ve come to chalk up clothes sizing as a natural complexity of life.
and then you buy two different brands of pants of the same w/l and they fit completely differently /)_-)
And you buy the same brand and model of pants from the same retailer and they still fit completely differently due to variation in the product. Pretty annoying, I just want to buy my Levi's 510s every couple years and get the same thing each time.
yeah I dont buy pants without trying them on now, and usually still need to get them tailored. buying oversized shirts is fine online tho because if you get them a bit wrong in either direction its fine.
The original title made clear that this was about sizing for women's clothes. I'm not sure why that was removed; it wasn't clickbaity, and made the title more informative. In fact, I'd argue that just "Sizing chaos" is more clickbaity. (The article itself doesn't seem to have an official title.)
It's cool to see pudding.cool making the front of HN regularly.
The issue is not the sizes, the issue is the obesity epidemic. According to CDC [1] the average woman in the US is 5'3" weighing 172lbs. That's not just overweight but rather first degree of obesity. I guess you could argue that sizes should catch up to the demands when half of your population is straight up fat but I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
The article points out that the problem is deeper than this:
> Once I compared my personalized sloper to commercial patterns and retail garments, I had a revelation: clothes were never made to fit bodies like mine. It didn’t matter how much weight I gained or lost, whether I contorted my body or tried to buy my way into styles that “flatter” my silhouette, there was no chance that clothes would ever fit perfectly on their own.
[flagged]
The article has mounds of data that to speak to exactly how the clothing sizes ARE the issue. Inconsistencies within brands, across brands, shifting vanity sizes, and shapes designed to fit only 12% of women. And yet, the top comment is about obesity...
Yes, obesity is clearly an epidemic. But discounting the entire article's premise to point that out?
Thanks, any one with kids experiences this. It's so frustrating. For the same kid you could literally have 5 different sizes that are the same. So you have to keep track of sizes by brand. Trying a new brand is often an adventure. Worse of all, if you come across a sale and rush to take advantage of it. You could end up having lots of items shipped only to have to return every single one of them. It's a mess.
Despite the article highlighting only people of width as the "millions of people who are excluded from standard size ranges", sizing is also a problem in the other direction: it's practically impossible to find well-fitting clothes if you're tall and in decent shape. To your point, though, perhaps there was a time when "large" and "x-large" meant "slightly tall" and "quite tall" rather than "slightly tall plus obese" and "quite tall plus very obese".
As a dude who is 6’ 1” or thereabouts with a 32” or thereabouts waist and a 34” (or thereabouts) inseam: can confirm.
Carhartts size up a waist size to account for shrinking, and I can almost reliably find a 34/34. Finding 32/34 in other pants is a challenge. On the subject of vanity sizing, I’m 15 pounds heavier than I was 20 years ago, and I still wear a 32/34. Which is why all those measurements are qualified above.
Finding shirts that fit is a similar challenge. Fitted shirts can usually be found in 16 34-35 with an athletic cut. Letter sizes are a total crapshoot. Sometimes I’m a L, sometimes an M. If I’m an M across the gut, frequently the shoulders are far too tight.
Not that I’m complaining as such, but I do agree that the sizes encompass too little information about body shape.
I'm 6'0 34/32 and even still feel some of this; L shirts are baggy, but M shirts (and sweaters) are often too short in the length and arms, especially after a wash.
And it's not my imagination; I have a few custom made dress shirts from Maxwell's and those absolutely do feel correct in both dimensions.
A tall medium where available will typically work for me but most brands don't have it at all and those that do it's a special order so what's even the point of being in the store; I might add well have just done a blind buy online from home.
As a dude who is 6'7" with a 35" waist (34" in brands that do vanity sizing) and an inseam that can handle a 34" even if it's not quite long enough, I agree that it's tough. One of the more annoying problems is that the MT shirt size doesn't seem to exist where I shop and LT flares outwards at the bottom. At least it's pretty easy to get a shirt taken in.
I’m not affiliated with it but I recommend americantall.com They only do clothes for tall people.
(And for women who’ve made it this deep in the thread, Long Tall Sally has been pretty excellent over time.)
For work casual (and formal!), I was thrilled to discover tailored shirts. Not bespoke, but actually getting fitted in a store like Jos. Bank that handles the alterations.
The value proposition is comfort and they last a decade.
I do support addressing obesity (see my elsethreads), but duly noted that it’s not a cure-all panacea for the problems faced by women. Obesity does not address the nine different U.S. body shapes; one can be obese and rectangular, or obese and spoon, or obese and triangle. Resolving obesity is a worthy cause, but will only reduce or remove the impact of size inflation on ‘vanity’ sizing as a whole, without addressing the significant disparity of sizes between manufacturers or the near-total lack of products for the eight non-hourglass body shapes.
Yeah, I didn't want to be nasty about it, but the article saying that 37" is the median adult American woman's waist measurement is... pretty shocking. Like, I'm a 6' slightly out of shape dude and my waist fluctuates from 33-35". You'd have to be pretty large to have a feminine figure and have the narrow part be 2" wider than my widest section.
Have you measured your waist? Vanity sizing is a thing in men’s clothes too.
No you're not. That's the size your brands of choice advertise to you so you think that you're slimmer than you are.
For anyone else wondering. Im also a 33 or 34 in pretty much any brand, just measured my waistline (where my pants usually sit), 38.5 inches.
Never knew!
Ha, TIL
I'll point out a statistical hazard here. While CDC lists the average height and weight at 5'3" and 172 lbs, the medians appear to be 5'3" and 161 lbs. That's a BMI of 28 and is considered overweight (25-30), not obese. Although I'll mention BMI is a pretty rough measure to begin with.
To provide context for those still using BMI as the sole 'fat or not' discriminator — the CDC published an n=9894 longitudinal study* about ten years ago; generally summarizing figure 1, the median starts around 0.53 +/- gender variance at 20-29, peaks at 0.62 +/- at 70-79, and then begins decreasing from there; however, they found that BMI fails to represent the 'fat' levels improperly (to our detriment) for people in their 40s (figure 2), as older human bodies tend to lose fat in areas (i.e. arms) that have no significant bearing on overall health, but gain fat in the abdomen (which other studies have shown does correspond to increasing cardiovascular issues). They show median waist-to-height-ratio data as 'monotonically increasing abdominal adipose tissue throughout the years of adulthood but decreasing mass in non-abdominal regions', which bodes very poorly for clothing manufacturers — because not only do you have to account for nine body shapes in women, but you also have to account for age skewing the waist-to-length ratios of the body shape further.
It would be particularly interesting to repeat this sizing study using the garment length to identify where it falls in 'height' median for women, and then identifying what 'age' median the garment's waistline is calibrated for. I can certainly guess what the results will be from personal experience on a per-retailer basis, and it would be a useful way to mathematically identify 'underserved niches' in today's market to target with appropriately-fit clothing (without a body scan).
* doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172245 (2017) https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44820
“BMI fails to represent the 'fat' levels improperly” - what is that supposed to say. I’m just done trying to understand things that the writer didn’t even read.
*properly. Apologies, logical negation errors are and always will be my bane in self-proofreading.
I am really surprised about the sharp increase in body size by age in the USA.
I have just anecdotal experience here in Europe, but I know for a fact that all the females in my family have kept the same size since they were 16-18 years old. That’s also my experience with the male side of the family.
Most adults in the US become physically inactive after they leave school/collage and move to an area where they have to drive everywhere, while sitting in an office the rest of the day.
While I'm well aware weight gain requires over consumption, I feel there is an under appreciated importance on being somewhat mobile rather than sitting/laying down for 23 hours a day
You can live a completely sedentary lifestyle and lose or maintain weight through eating normal amounts of food. Exercise is not the problem, overeating consistently is.
For women, it's very common to consume sugary coffee flavored drinks and this behavior is glamorized on social media.
For men, the problem is worse.
In theory sure, but teenagers love sugary drinks and burgers too, sugar drinks exist all over the world too where obesity rates are significantly lower. While you can be slim while sitting all day doing nothing, being physically active is massively important for your health.
The fact that the particular area you live in determines so much of the probability a person would be obese suggests the location plays a huge part. While sugary drinks are marketed and popular everywhere.
I remember a survey of explanatory variables for obesity. The variable that explained more was the size of corn subsidies.
The hypothesis was: if you produce it, it will be consumed (Say's Law). Lower prices mean larger quantities demanded. (I know, it sounds like a confounding variable, you need a cross-sectional regression)
Yea, if you read between the lines in this article this stands out. Over half of all adult women don't fit into regular sizes. "Plus size" is not normal.
> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy.
An even better angle is educating Starbucks to stop selling unhealthy garbage.
The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.
This is an extremely hazardous opinion.
It is true that corporations spend vast resources attempting to lure consumers into their webs but you do have agency! You can resist!
Vote with your wallet and strip these bad actors of the power you handed to them when you gave up.
> The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy.
You know they have Starbucks in other countries without an obesity crisis?
No one is forcing you or I to order a particular drink at Starbucks; they literally put the number of calories directly next to the menu item. The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.
> The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.
If you put a pile of junk food on the floor, your pet will eat it until they make themselves sick.
We are smarter than many animals and have more discipline. But we are still animals and do not have unlimited executive function. The people who architect the environment of incentives that surround us bear some amount of responsibility for the behavior those incentives create.
Denying that is denying that we are living beings subject to all of the same limitations as any other mortal animal. We are not spherical rational actors in a vacuum.
You can't control the incentives, you can only control your reactions to those incentives.
Just eyeballing a map, the countries that pop out as both having Starbucks and not having an obesity problem are China and India. Other than that, it looks like most of the countries that have Starbucks have obesity rates over, like, 20%, which seems pretty bad.
This isn’t to say Starbucks is causing obesity, of course. Most likely they are showing up together as the economy develops.
I do think it is worth noting that obesity is a pretty widespread problem, not uniquely American or anything like that.
Yeah but progressive ideals are a much harder sell if people have to take responsibility for their actions. "Others should pay for my mobility scooter because others keeps feeding me junk food" and all that.
Then again, free will is an illusion, so...
That Starbucks probably saved my life after I made an unwise decision to bike 40 miles on an empty stomach. Bonking is real, and I’m glad they are allowed to sell the sugary beverages to prevent me from bonking.
Oh and I also fainted the first time I donated blood, because I did not know I should not donate blood while fasting. Again, sugary drinks helped.
I bonked in the middle of a 100km ride on a rail trail through farmer's fields. I thought I'd had enough food, since the same amount was sufficient for the initial trip out a few days earlier, but it wasn't. It was the return journey of my first big bike trip, and it was absolute hell after I bonked. I'd ride for twenty minutes, then lie on the ground for ten. When I was laying on the ground I'd be searching the vegetation for anything that looked vaguely edible.
Crazy how a glucose drop can sneak up and humble you so quickly!
There's a lot of area on the spectrum between where we are today and "sugary beverages are all banned".
For example, Starbucks could limit the sizes it sells and advertises—you'd still be able to have as much sugar as you would like by buying multiple drinks, but it would raise the activation energy needed to do that. Making the healthier choice the path of least resistance works wonders.
You really can't discern between a healthy portion of sugar and an unhealthy portion of sugar? I can assure you it should be way less than what they are serving. Especially since society will bare these costs in a variety of unexpected ways, Starbucks needs to be compelled into doing so. They broke the societal compact, they have to be punished.
I can discern it very well. And indeed I think for the people like me who can discern it, stores should be able to sell these sugary beverages. The same amount of sugar is unhealthy when I’m sedentary, but absolutely necessary in other cases.
You could just buy two less-sugary ones
That's fine but people like you are an extreme minority and I'd rather the government regulate the greed from these addiction companies rather than forcing tax payers to foot the bill.
Corporate welfare has to end.
By that logic, should Starbucks also sell life-saving insulin and epi pens?
You know multinational brands sell sweeter products in the US than in other countries?
It's not that all the rest of the world has sugar tax or something. It's customer profile.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32576300/ [1]: https://www.itiger.com/news/1184332557
Christ man, do you wake up every morning and pray while facing Washington DC and ask for guidance as to whether or not you should drink battery acid? People are responsible for their fucking decisions!
I'm guessing that you meant this in a semi-humorous and hyperbolic way rather than a mean way, but it would probably be good to review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. A comment like this wouldn't need too much to come across as friendly rather than aggressive.
GLP-1s disprove this to an extent. Personal responsibility is based on a fallacy, it’s just brain chemistry.
So give everyone GLP-1s to cast the shadow of personality responsibility (reduction in adverse reward center operations, broadly speaking) through better brain chemistry. Existence is hard, we can twiddle the wetware to make it less hard.
The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work - if you force yourself into a caloric deficit through the inhibition of hunger hormones using drugs that you will lose weight. It has nothing to do with people choosing to eat highly processed unhealthy foods over healthier options. When you're on Ozempic or peptides like Retatrutide/Tirzepatide you don't think "I will not eat a bag of chips today because it's unhealthy and calorie dense", you simply don't think about eating because your feeling of hunger is inhibited.
You are incorrect. GLP-1s modify food desires as well. “Will power” is merely hormone levels in this regard.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
> Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes and obesity treatment. Their effects on appetite and satiety are well established, but less is known about their associations with food purchases. Case reports and small observational studies suggest that GLP-1RA initiation is associated with altered preferences from highly processed, energy-dense products to minimally processed foods. We examined whether initiation of GLP-1RAs for treatment was associated with changes in nutritional quality and processing level of supermarket purchases.
> Changes in purchasing patterns after GLP-1RA initiation were seen across most nutrient categories. Opposed to comparisons, after the first prescription, participants purchased fewer calories, sugars, saturated fats, and carbohydrates, alongside modestly more protein. The share of ultraprocessed foods also decreased. Although modest at the individual level, these changes may accumulate at the population level, particularly given increasing GLP-1RA use.
Food desires are simply addictions like smoking. If you cease consuming high amounts of processed food and sugar (through the inhibition of hunger), then you also kill these cravings.
GLP-1 functioning as methodone is fine for me tbh. Medically assisted addiction management is pretty gold-standard for a lot of addictions!
> The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work
This is incorrect, as demonstrated over and over again. For many people's bodies, consuming less will result in the body changing its metabolism to burn less, and not dipping into fat stores. Conversely, for many people's bodies, exercising more does not in fact change their metabolism and the amount of energy they burn. (There are studies that going from "zero" to "not zero" makes a meaningful difference, but "not zero" to "quite active" often doesn't.) "CICO" is not useful or actionable for many people.
That there is variance in energy expenditure both within a population and within a person over time doesn't mean that a caloric deficit doesn't work. It just means that using a single scalar value (which is usually a gross estimate) to drive your caloric intake is a poor approach.
The body has means to regulate it's energy expenditure to maintain homeostasis, and in some people it can be a hundreds of kcal difference. But if you're trying to lose body fat on a 10% estimated deficit and fail, the conclusion shouldn't be that a 20% deficit will also fail.
For some people, a 50% "deficit" fails. And the entire concept of "X workout burns Y calories" is completely bunk. Again, there have been multiple studies to this effect.
Are you actually saying some people don’t lose weight on a 50% caloric deficit? Is there any evidence of that?
It's not physically possible for a 50% deficit to fail, what you probably mean is that their energy expenditure was incorrectly estimated at +50%.
No, what I mean is that their body's energy expenditure changed in response to the change in their caloric intake, with no other changes taking place.
The body may try to maintain homeostasis but 50% sounds way too high. Someone with a tdee of 2200 kcal will not be able to maintain their weight at 1100 calories for very long.
Adaptation in energy expenditure includes both metabolic adaptation as well as "NEAT" ("non-exercise activity thermogenesis"); the latter includes subconscious changes in posture, fidgeting, and various other things that can increase/decrease the body's energy expenditure by a massive degree, in an effort to (as far as people can tell) maintain a "set point" in the body that is difficult to change. This set point resists both weight gain and weight loss, both attempting to resist the change in the first place and attempting to undo it if successful.
I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to lose weight through sufficiently large caloric restriction. I'm observing that it is not anywhere close to as simple as "CICO", because CO is heavily a function of CI, rather than the popular incorrect perception of CO being things like "exercise".
Neat can maybe explain a couple hundred kcal variance in most people, perhaps there are exceptions but 50%? I've never seen that in the literature.
Calories in calories out is just the summation of expenditure and intake, just because the body is complex and there are many interdependent factors doesn't mean it cant be resolved to a vector which determines weight gain/loss. The problem is people google a tdee calculator, get some scalar which is likely wrong, perhaps substantially, make lifestyle changes, and then have an expectation of some result in a specific timeline that isn't realistic, and then eat a bunch of sodium, put on 2 lbs in their "deficit", and think the diet made them fatter! Or they read that -3500kcal == -1lb fat, calculate their calories burned from the machines at the gym, and get frustrated when it doesn't work (I'm guilty!).
Weight loss is actually really hard because it really just requires a sustained effort over a long period of time to achieve anything. You might not see any results for weeks as your body adjusts, you get your diet locked in, etc. And since your weight can vary so much day to day, it's hard to stay motivated. Ozempic kind of bypasses these problems. You know what else works? 20k steps a day and eating on a backpacker budget :P
Eh? I mean, this sounds potentially interesting but I don’t understand it!
“We fixed the glitch.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12742762/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003193842...
https://time.com/7340807/history-debate-insurance-glp-1s/
https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas...
The consistency that I'm hearing from all across patient groups is gain of control, whereas previously, there was a loss of control… All of a sudden they're able to step back and say, 'oh, well I had this shopping phenomenon that was going on, gambling, addiction, or alcoholism, and all of a sudden, it just stopped,'
- Dr. Gitanjali Srivastava, Vanderbilt Medical Center
Read my comment more carefully.
If a company put a giant a giant bollard in the middle of the interstate and someone hit it, are you saying that the company bears zero responsibility for that?
Are millions of people voluntarily paying money to hit the bollard daily or thereabouts when not hitting the bollard is free and takes less time out of their day?
Yeah it would be better if everyone just didn't eat crap but crap is what people want.
Having briefly experienced weight loss drugs - and the bliss of that constant “EAT!” voice in your head just going quiet - I’m pretty convinced most humans have a genuine genetic predisposition to overeating.
And when you zoom out to the population level, the “we’re all autonomous individuals” argument gets a lot shakier. Like yeah, at the individual level you have agency, you make choices, fine. But at scale? We are absolutely at the mercy of whoever has figured out how to tickle our monkey brains in just the right way to get us buying their fattening food.
> They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.
I walk by Starbucks every day without consuming 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks. You think that's due to their agency??
You can be in perfect shape and still not find clothes that fit. The issue IS the sizes.
Expecting mass-market, lowest-common-denominator products to be tailored to your special circumstance is the issue.
Normalize going to a tailor, instead of grumbling about how you aren't benefiting enough from the sweatshops mass retailers are running.
But they're not lowest-common-denominator products. If they were, clothing designers would be tailoring clothes for a rectangular figure. The article clearly shows that only 12% of women have that "hourglass" figure and yet, by design, almost all the clothing manufacturers are tailoring their clothes for this shape, regardless of size.
You think companies are all deliberately leaving big money on the table by making hourglass clothes as an oopsie?
They're doing it because people are buying clothes based on superficial appearance, and most people prefer the aesthetics of the hourglass shape.
Rectangular clothing doesn't sell as well because it doesn't look as good on a mannequin even if it fits better.
Yeah I wanted to point out the same. This sizing problem is not as prevalent outside of the US/Mexico (leaders in obesity).
It’s less prevalent in EU and even less so in some East Asian countries.
Regulate now. You would think it actually levels the playing field for everyone.
Never got this, nor the bizarre dysfunctional pockets on womens clothes.
In wartime/rationing, the government stipulated hem size, banned turn-ups, oxford bags, specified jacket lengths, cloth weights. For working class people, clothes IMPROVED. (de-mob (de-mobilisation) suits were for some working men the best suit of clothes they had ever owned)
Almost like we should use, you know, units of length, when measuring lengths/widths/etc.
Funny enough, vanity sizing strikes there too. The purported waist size of a pair of Levi's is off by almost three inches.
One might argue that the size on their label is not supposed to indicate the size of the garment waistband, but the waist size of the wearer who would find it comfortable, but even with that interpretation it doesn't work out right.
Yeah. It's a remarkable problem. There is a clear solution that is happily used for men. You tell people what to measure then have the clothes sized for the various dimensions.
Charles Tyrwhitt have this guide where they tell you what to measure for shirts :
https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/size-guides/szg-formal-sh...
and for trousers :
https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/szg-trousers-4-2021.html
Presumably some online shops for women have something similar?
Sizing only sucks because diet and exercise habits changed since the sizes were introduced.
But then why haven't the sizes been updated? We've been gaining weight slowly over decades, they've had time.
We're all still collectively telling ourselves we'll get back in shape any day now.
Hot take (?):
The random sizing today is great:
* If you want a better fit, go physically to a store instead of shopping online and try them on.
* the vanity part is also fine, no need to cause outrage at raising the number and making people depressed cause they think they're even more "fat". It doesn't need to be "optimized"
* Only serves online retail to "standardize", but guess what, 15th standard also sucks... <cue xkcd comic about standards>.
Enjoyed the presentation of the site. :)
This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to considered victims so lets make up something to whine about"
A few concrete issues:
(1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should relabel the clothing, all that would do is raise the price and effectively make poor people poorer.
(2) they show people "Americans" get heavier - That might be reality but maybe being reminded you're wearing extra large is a good thing? Like you really are "overweight" and that's unhealthy. You can choose to ignore that but the rest of us aren't required re-label you as something you're not
(3) They graph high-fashion like LV and show they don't have large sizes. So what? Ferrari doesn't make cheap cars. I'm not required to make product that suits you. If you don't like what I'm offering, pick some other company's products. I don't like donuts, I don't go to a donut store and demand they offer pizza. Nor do I go to jeans store and demand they carry suits.
(4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue? Try the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's what I do because duh!, different people and companies follow different patterns. Some fit, some don't.
If you want to fix any of these - feel free to start your own clothing brand. Clearly you believe the market isn't being served. If so, put your money where your mouth is rather than requiring others to risk theirs
Its like the pockets complaints.
Women desperately want pants with pockets, but pockets throw off the aesthetic, so they don't sell well.
Is that actually true though? Because I remember distinctly as a teen somewhere in the 00s where pockets stopped being an option. I could not and still cannot buy them in regular stores. I have to go to speciality stores or order online to get pockets. A lot of women have become resigned, but I rarely know a woman who isn't very excited about pockets for every day wear.
I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting.
While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.
Japan was the example that stood out to me. (It's where UNIQLO is from.)
I'm 5'11"/180cm with US11/EU45 feet. They didn't sell boots that fit me in Japan. I got a deal on an "XL" jacket that the salesman insisted I buy, because I was the only person to have ever come into the store that it fit. (It's the only thing I've ever worn labelled "XL.")
I'm pretty much the same size as you.
I am a 4XL in China (or was, when I was there last) and a S in the US.
That blows my mind.
As a healthy sized individual I've always found buying clothes based on measurements rather than vanity sizing much more useful as well. Can't say it's enough to force the hand of an entire market... but I also can't point to what marking in only vanity sizes is providing the consumer in the first place.
> (4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue? Try the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's what I do because duh!, different people and companies follow different patterns. Some fit, some don't.
Many people, especially women, suffer from peer pressure. You just seem to lack the empathy to acknowledge that a lot of them really struggle because of clothing sizes, out of fear of being stigmatised.
Can confirm the utter hell it is to shop for women's clothing. I started transitioning at the ripe old age of 36, and up until that point, have obviously bought clothes for men. My entire fucking life I have bought XL shirts and jeans with a 38-44 inch waist, shorter legs. Never had an issue.
Womens sizes... like Jesus Christ, I don't know how ANY women tolerate this shit. It's completely made up. A size 0 in one brand feels similar to a size 3 in another, feels similar to Large in another, feels similar to -1 in another. Anything you buy and like, you effectively have to pray they keep making forever, and always buy from that brand or you risk getting something else that doesn't fit correctly.
I've never shopped a product category that feels so utterly hostile to consumer comprehension, except MAYBE microtransactions in videogames. And I'm not meaning to be dramatic, that's the only other type of market I've experienced in life where it feels like my attempts to understand what I'm buying are being deliberately frustrated like this.
It's intentional, to force you to engage a salesperson, and that salesperson knows all the jargon and unnecessary variations and how to size clothing that fits you. Once you have a positive transaction like that, it gives the company the opportunity to get a very loyal customer out of you, and it's the more pricey and "exclusive" brands. 100% emotional manipulation - they piss you off on purpose so they can seem like a hero and set you up with clothing that feels and looks good, but the specific fit will only match their numbers, and maybe even only their numbers for that season. How about ensuring that you can match someone who wears XL with an L right after holiday season, or hit them with an XL in the fall to set them up for a change during the holidays, etc.
The schemes are ruthless and never end, and it's all arbitrary fashion. In some ways, it's a lot easier being a guy.
I mean shit, I'd happily engage with salespeople if I wasn't terrified of my red-state-living self getting hatecrimed if I go to the wrong store.
Is this not the case with men?
To an extent, yes.
However, men's clothing is generally rather shapeless, whereas women's clothing is usually quite figure-fitting.
Women also have a lot more variety in body shape: breasts are a thing, for starters, and there's a wide variety in which areas fat is primarily stored.
Is sizing an issue for men as well? Yeah, probably. But it is significantly worse for women.
>By age 15, most girls have gone through growth spurts and puberty, and they’ve reached their adult height.
>Many have started to outgrow the junior’s size section.
Ummmmm.... What? I wore junior’s sizes well into my 30s. Am I really that much of an outlier?
Statistically, yes.
> I took stacks upon stacks of jeans with me to the dressing room, searching in vain for that one pair that fit perfectly. Over 20 years later, my hunt for the ideal pair of jeans continues. But now as an adult, I’m stuck with the countless ways that women’s apparel is not made for the average person, like me.
I'm a 5'6 145lbs adult male. Y'know how many clothes are made that fit me? T-shirts, size S, fitted; and dress shirts by Express. That's basically it. Pants don't fit me because the legs aren't short enough, the crotch isn't long enough, and I don't have a butt/thighs. Basically no jacket fits me. Shoes? One of my feet is a different size than the other.
I, too, have to try on literally every garment I see that sort-of-looks-like it might fit. I have tried hundreds of pairs of jeans, dress shirts, jackets. When I find one that fits, I buy two of them (or every one in a different color). And then I gain or lose weight... and the cycle repeats. I probably own 30 pairs of jeans, and a closet full of shirts that I almost never wear, but one day might want, and will never be able to find anywhere else.
Human bodies are diverse. Standard sizes don't work. But you know what will give you the perfect fit? Tailoring. Buy something too big, take it to a neighborhood drycleaner & tailor, and have them alter it to fit you. It's that simple. If you're worried about not having "enough" clothes and want to save money, it's not hard to use a sewing machine (if I learned, you can). In retrospect, I should've used tailoring rather than constantly hunt for fitting clothes. But I suspect I hunt the racks for the same reason women do: the idea that, somewhere out there, there's a better item I don't have.
I don't think there's a way to reform the fashion industry, as it produces what the market bears. You could also - and I know this is crazy, but bear with me - wear ill-fitting clothes. Your gender doesn't have to constantly strive to be attractive. We will be into you regardless. And if you're just trying to live up to your own gender's expectations... maybe it's not a great expectation.
It's a similar situation for taller men (6'1" and up).
All t-shirt sizing is completely wrong for me. I have a longer torso and broader shoulders than anything in standard sizing. Some "big and tall" sizes fit my shoulders and are long enough, but then are also insanely baggy because I'm apparently not fat enough.
This post is about women’s sizing, not men’s sizing. I’d love to see a followup post by someone doing the same analysis for men’s sizing, though!
Women's sizing got bad first, and is worse today, but men's sizing is already moving fast down the same road.
This crap affects all of us and awareness that we're all in the same boat is a good thing.
This is the first pudding article that does not feel as polished. Scrolling down the spacing between legends within the data visualizations are not good. Some text doesn't even appear (cut off from the top on the torso visualizations). My font size is increased by like 150% thru the OS but my zoom is still 100%.
Good content tho.
[dead]
[dead]
As a male who has been on both ends of the spectrum (morbidly obese) and 'fit' / bodybuilder I find the whole discussion about size, clothing, weight, vanity, etc incredibly boring.
Buy whatever clothes you're comfortable in and take steps to not be obese, and uninstall social media while you're at it. It really is that simple.
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we've already asked you repeatedly to stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681833 (Oct 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728916 (July 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287383 (June 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36346650 (June 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29857405 (Jan 2022)
I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we're going to end up doing that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
I’d argue this problem is more important than most of the tech articles on this site. Having well-fitted clothing is a massive quality of life improvement.
ah yes, clothes not fitting, a famously bourgeoisie problem /s
As somebody with an atypical body shape, not being able to find things that fit is an endless source of irritation and discomfort
Does the author know she is allowed to put down the cake and go for a jog? You'll feel better, look better, live better.
A lot of companies don't want you and your HAES friends in their clothes. The healthy, attractive women who respect their bodies and health enough to conform to regular sizing are walking billboards for their brand.
It's harsh but maybe the obese should feel a little uncomfortable in public. Evidently some are shameless and impervious to accountability for their lifestyle choices that have led them to writing blog posts self-righteously seething about other people not retooling factories to accommodate their gargantuan waistlines.