[diath]

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

[panic]

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.

[zetanor]

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".

[mauvehaus]

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.

[altairprime]

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.

[WesleyJohnson]

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?

[segmondy]

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.

[mikepurvis]

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.

[jrmg]

Have you measured your waist? Vanity sizing is a thing in men’s clothes too.

[wahnfrieden]

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.

[8organicbits]

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.

[altairprime]

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

[tirant]

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.

[Gigachad]

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

[FarmerPotato]

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)

[j-krieger]

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.

[queenkjuul]

You can be in perfect shape and still not find clothes that fit. The issue IS the sizes.

[bloaf]

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.

[munificent]

> 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.

[c22]

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.

[oceanplexian]

> 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.

[kccqzy]

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.

[raincole]

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

[albedoa]

> 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??

[Insanity]

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.