Photochick,

I think you misunderstood my comment. I absolutely don't blame the fashion industry for the U.S. obesity epidemic. That is ridiculous.

Is vanity sizing contributing to the obesity problem, no but is it disguising the issue for women? Absolutely.

And yes, I do get motivated to get off the couch depending upon how my clothes fit. If I buy a 14 today and it fits, and 5 years from now a 14 still fits, and 20 years from now a 14 still fits but I know I am getting larger. That is a problem. One of many.

What other industry changes their standards based on unhealthy changing population demographics? To make people "feel better about themselves" why don't we change 1 pound to 1.5 pounds in the future so that people can think they are still smaller. I am 150 today but when we change the standard I can be only be 100 pounds. Yeah for me! NOT....

Sorry, but you went off in a completely different direction from where I was going.

Lots of them.

The food industry is probably the most obvious and easily documented: People want larger portion sizes, so restaurants start serving larger portions. People want more food, so we have "super sized" and "biggie sized" and "gotta have it" sizes. Look at the Hardy's "Thick Burger" and the other monster burgers that have come out recently to accommodate the changing demographic of those who want that kind of food.

And there are other industries that are less obvious that are doing the same.

Entertainment: Did you know that Disney is overhauling many of their rides to accommodate larger people because overweight adults are getting stuck in the rides or causing them to malfuction (there's an article about flume boats bottoming out because the weight of the average American has gone up and a "full" boat is now overloaded from what it was 20 years ago)?

Movie theaters as well .. the seats are getting larger and more "luxurious" to accommodate larger people. (And let's not talk about movie theater food - a large popcorn 20 years ago was a little more than what a small is right now).

Clothing manufacturers, as we've discussed, change their offerings with the changing size of the population.

The auto industry sells larger cars *in part* (not entirely, but in part) due to people being larger and not being comfortable in small cars. I read an article a few months ago (and I'll have to go searching for it) about how foreign auto makers were having to redesign the interiors of their cars to accommodate larger Americans - and it was a challenge for them because they dont' have the same size/support/comfort issues in their population, but that if they were going to sell cars in America, they had to make them comfortable and ergonomic for larger Americans.

There are lots of industries that have made significant changes to accommodate larger people. Those are just the ones that I remember off the top of my head.

.

I've got more on portion sizes:

Bottled and canned soda

Candy Bars

Individual potato chip and snack bags - the Big Grab, for example


I remember going to the store every day before band practice when I was a teenager and getting a bottled 10 oz. Dr. Pepper & a candy bar or chips. Well, 10 oz. is coming back, but it has been a long long time... And, the candy bar I bought then was not much bigger than what you get now in some of the assorted snack size bags. The chips are double, sometimes triple the size I used to buy and they are in the single serve section at the QT.

And, the introduction of the "Big Gulp" - remember how huge that used to seem? The largest QT drink is bigger than that drink was by a number of ounces. I think the "Big Gulp" was 24 oz, then moved to 36, you can get a 48 oz. at QT now I believe...

Why can't women's sizes be sold like men's? That is, by physical dimensions rather than sizes. You are a 28 waist, 40 hip, 32 inseam, whatever it is. Just do away with the "sizes", because there's no standardization anyway.

Manufacturers keep expanding the dimensions, supposedly to make us feel good that we fit into xx size, when really they've just made that size bigger over the years. Frankly, it just frustrates the heck out of me. I like to shop and all that, but having to try things over and over in every size variation just to find things that fit -- it's just inefficient and an exercise in frustration.

The problem is that is that there's a greater variety in women's proportions than in men's. It's easier to give men a waist/inseam size and it'll fit most men close to accurately.

Women have more variation in curves and ratios from hip to waist, waist to shoulder, etc. If a women's clothing manufacturer were to size by inches, they simply couldn't afford to make all the possible variations of inches and combinations that women would require.

I could have a 28" waist and 34" hips, where you could have a 28" waist and 36" hips and the woman across the hall could have a 28" waist and 33" hips. Clothing manufacturers just can't accomodate all those ranges. So the easiest thing to do is to make an "average" size ... and give it a flat number that has some meaning in relation to the other sizes they make.

And it's not just making things bigger. It REALLY isn't. It's about proportion and dimension. People's proportions have changed over the years - not just in an obesity sense, but in a more general population sense. Anyone who has toured a historical site can see ... beds were smaller 100 years ago, chairs were smaller, doors were smaller. We as a species have changed over the last 100 years, and even over the last 50 years, due to better nutrition and better medical care. It's not just about obesity. It's about people getting healthier and getting bigger.


.

I can tell you're not a pear shape. Three examples, and you didn't even come close to the difference between my waist and hips (11"), and I think I'm kind of a mild pear

Someone mentioned candy bars. As an aside:

Here's something I thought was funny at the grocery store the other day. M&M's don't come in "King Size" bags anymore. They come in "Tear & Share" bags.

Hahah! No, I'm solidly apple shaped. I didn't use my waist size because quite frankly it frightens me. It's an inverted ratio!

I'll be glad when the weight around my tummy and waist goes away.

.

very interesting thread!

Some sizes are very deristatic... Like currently in my closet I have a size 16 and a size 20 pants, and they both fit me exactly the same.. Makes it hard for me to determine if I have truly gone down in sizes though...

I have found size creep is terrible...especially in clothes "geared" toward older more mature buyers.

Yesterday I was in Coldwater Creek, and I was trying on jeans and a little, black jacket. In all their jackets and shirts, I was in an X-Small and in their jeans I needed a Size 2. OK, I have gotten pretty thin and I have a small waist, but I wear a 36B bra and I have BROAD shoulders and some curvy hips and thighs. X-Small, really? Size 2? I had the same thing happen at Christopher Banks looking at jackets.

However, I am a small and a solid Size 4, even a Size 6, at say Kohl's, Old Navy, Gap, Nordstrom, Eddie Bauer, etc.

Mainly I find it annoying, because I find that the supposed "size charts" on on-line sites are not always accurate so I am often afraid to order clothes on-line...

And skirts seem to be ALL wonky. In my regular size, the waist always seems to be WAY too big. What is up with that? I REALLY want a knee length, chocolate brown, cordoroy skirt to wear with boots, but they all fit me like a tube -- even with a belt they are all bunched up under my shirt when I try to snug them in at the waist...bleh!!!! Or of they fit at the waist, they are more than, er, skimming over my butt and thighs.

Schumeany - my mom just bought me a skirt almost exactly like what you described, fabric and length the same, tan not chocolate brown - Liz Clairborne, size 4. I'm going to look to see if I can find a style name. She said she got it at the Liz outlet.

I disagree completely with this, because if you know the history of sizing, you learn that vanity sizing is more myth than fact.

Until only about 60 years ago, we were exactly in the state we are now, with there being absolutely no consistency in women's sizes. Each manufacturer made and named their sizes as they wished to. It wasn't until the mid 1940's that a serious attempt was made to standardize women's sizes, mostly for mail-order retailers, to aid customers in odering, as it is a situation in which trying on to fit wasn't practical as it was in the department store. Without a standard, women would have no clue what size to order and it would discourage them from buying as they'd have to deal with the hassle of ordering multiple sizes and sending back what didn't fit. So a large-scale research product to measure and callibrate standard sizes.

In this standardization process, a size 10 was selected to represent the average woman (determined statistically). It was expected that like a census, that periodically large research studies would be conducted to remeasure women and that a size 10 would ALWAYS be assigned to the "average" woman whatever that average was. So a size 10 in one decade (or however, long it was between restandardizing) would not necessarily be a size 10 a decade later. In fact, since all of the measurements would be recalculated it wouldn't even necessarily mean you could convert an old size 12 to a new size 10. Because say only women's breast size changed (on average), then the measurement for the waists and hips would stay the same in the various size categories, but bust size would be different.

However, this attempt to standardize sizes still didn't work very well, because of the wide variability in the measurements of "real women" and the intangible variables of fit, cut, and style. While you can average the measurements of a nation of women, it doesn't correct for the fact that real women often come in very unaverage packages (and bust, waist, and hip measurements may fall in three different size ranges). So depending on the style you might be able to narrow down your size to a size or two, you still could find that the size you ordered, didn't fit you the way you had hoped it would.

If your bust is a size 8 and your waist is a size 10, and your hips a size 12 - which size do you order? A lot depends on the cut of the garment. If it's an empire waisted dress with a full skirt, you probably will fit in a size 8 dress. If it's a sheath dress, you'll probably need a 12. However, what size "are" you? - an 8, a 9, or a 10? The fact is you "are" none of those. At least the manufactuers did not intend women to define themselves by a size, but just to have an easier time of ordering a dress that fit.

"Size" was never meant to be used as a standard to judge or define women, but to help them in a practical manner order clothing to fit when trying on a garment was not possible. It wasn't supposed to be an encouragement to define oneself in accordance with the size, or control their weight, or compare themselves to other women. Women did that on their own. If the issue of obesity is being "disguised," it is because women have chosen to define size in a way it was never meant to be used by the manufacturer.

Regardless of all valid and interesting points made here, I do not feel the current method is very effective. Maybe it is time for the sizings to become for standardized and regulated? As someone else mentioned, you can't even go by individual makers sizing charts. If you are big, you are big. It doesn't matter if a tag says 6 or 26.

The trouble with trying to standardize sizes is that women don't have standard size bodies.

The problem is that the the standardization and regulation was attempted and has been largely abandoned (beginning I believe in the 1980's) because it was essentially a failed experiment. I believe only clothing pattern manufacturers in the USA are legally still held to the standard (I don't know if the standards were ever redefined or if they are as originally determined).

The problem with standardizing and regulating is essentially what bargoo has pointed out - how do you account for nonstandard bodies or intangible factors like "cut" and "style". If your bust, waist or hips fall outside the average for a standard size, and manufacture's are required to fit a garment to a standard, some women will never find clothing that fit. Who gets to decide what "correct fit" means, and if it's the manufacturer, how do you hold them to a standard? Say a garment that is marked a size 10, fits and flatters a woman who normally wears a size 16. Is the garment mis-sized or is the garment "meant to fit loosely," and the size 16 woman is wearing it "incorrectly?"