[harrismm]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/10...rss_topstories

[kiramira]

Really not much different from what I'd gleaned on my own -- people are getting bigger. BMI isn't the be all and end all, but IMHO still is a good indicator. People who are larger and hang out with larger people feel "normal" and not large (lots of articles in the past about this in the media). Vanity sizing is rampant, and many of us recall, like me, being a teenager and 135 lbs and a size 12/13, and today being 171 lbs and fitting into size 10 jeans in some brands.
The scary part of this is that I detect a societal shift towards normalizing the condition of being overweight -- I am a size 10! And although I am 171 lbs and my bmi indicates I am overweight, the BMI MEASURING METHOD IS FLAWED and I want another measuring stick. Even though I can SEE the extra 40 pounds on my stomach and thighs and back and arms...

Patients are SUING MDs for saying that they need to lose weight. And alot of times, the MDs and nutritionists dispensing the advice are themselves overweight, so even THEY aren't following the advice! But don't SAY that out loud -- it just makes us feel, well, uncomfortable and isn't "appropriate" to make this link...The condition of being overweight is becoming medicalized and is removed from a person's sense of responsibility (it is the government, the manufacturers, the ads on tv, my genetics, my upbringing, I had a sad childhood, sugar is evil, I can't find strawberries at the 7-11...). And vanity sizing isn't helping the matter.

It is the HUGE conundrum in our society today. How do we as a society address the issue of overweight if it is portrayed as undesirable but NORMAL? And how can it be addressed truthfully if the truth has become politically incorrect to say???

Interesting questions, for sure...

Thanks for the link!

Kira

[TamiL]

The whole vanity sizing issue is messed up. When I was a senior in high school I weighed in at 130lbs at 5'3". Not overweight but definitely not skinny! I wore a size 9 juniors then. This was before the days of low waisted jeans with spandex in them. Now here I am 26 years later, same weight, I now wear a size 4 (I don't have junior sized hips anymore, LOL). What is even stranger to me now is when I go to Walmart (yes, I am cheap like that) and try to find pants they almost never have anything in the smaller sizes. Its like you have to wear either a size 12 to a 16 or shop in the silly (teenager) departments. When did we all become the same size and shape?

[Wolf Goddess]

I've always wished that sizing was regulated somehow - it would be nice to not have to try on everything I want to buy, since the sizes now are all just random numbers.

[CountingDown]

Originally Posted by Wolf Goddess

I've always wished that sizing was regulated somehow - it would be nice to not have to try on everything I want to buy, since the sizes now are all just random numbers.

AMEN! I have vintage clothes that are size 10. In current sizes, I range from 2-8.

VERY frustrating!

[kaplods]

Originally Posted by Wolf Goddess

I've always wished that sizing was regulated somehow - it would be nice to not have to try on everything I want to buy, since the sizes now are all just random numbers.

In essence the reason sizing standards are so difficult, is because women's bodies do not follow the standards. There is much more variation in women's bodies than would be feasible in sizing garments. Also different women like their clothes to fit differently, some prefer snugger and looser (and not only in general, but at different body areas).

Attempts to regulate and standardize women's clothing styles is largely a failed experiment. Here are two threads in which the history of women's sizing and the difficulties in standardizing sizing is discussed.


http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/look...e-exactly.html

http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/gene...semi-rant.html


I think there are ways to improve the guesswork in sizing, but it would be much different than the original attempt made. There would have to be a lot more than six standard sizes (2 thru 12), and I'm not even talking about adding the plus sizes.

I like how Lane Bryant "Right Fit" jeans are sized, they have a color system (red, yellow, blue) to fit women with three main body types "straight, moderately curvy and curvy" in sizes 1 through 10 (these are not standard sizes, but plus sizes, I believe equivalent to misses sizes 14 through 34), in five lengths (very short, short, average, long, and very long)

So that means that the company makes 150 different sizes (many of the styles do not come on the the very short or very long so that would be reduced to 90 sizes).

If they would do this with standard sizes (2 through 12) also, that would mean up to 240 different sizes). And even so, many women would still not like the fit of the available sizes.

[sunflowergirl68]

And on the flipside, I work at David's Bridal and our dresses and wedding gowns run small, and most people are up a size from their normal size.

One bride was so put off by this, her being a 6 in her jeans, was visibly upset (I mean, she was like CRYING) that the wedding gowns in a size 8 fit her perfectly, so she insisted that we sell her a 6 so she could squeeze into so she could feel better about herself. That woman needed psychological help. So the consultant tried to talk her out of it, saying that no one will know she's wearing a size 8 and it's better to be comfortable but she refused.