As nation gains, 'overweight' is relative - article
I don't like this..
(CNN) -- The little number on the tag on a pair of pants that indicates size can mean a lot to a person, and retailers know it.
The probability of people describing themselves as overweight is decreasing, researchers find.
That's why, in recent years, as the American population has become generally more overweight, brands from the luxury names to the mass retail chains have scaled down the size labels on their clothing
The article uses extremely flawed reasoning, and that is the "myth" of vanity sizing.
Vanity sizing does exist - there are women who refuse to wear a size they don't like to see. Manufacturer's do take into account this when sizing their clothes. However, the problem is in assuming that sizes have a "true" meaning respective of that we assign it. It's also important to understand the history of sizing to see that vanity sizing is not the problem, how we are interpreting size is.
Clothing sizes were ever meant to "tell you" whether you were overweight or not. Standardized sizing is largely a failed experiment, beginning in the 1940's. Before that, there were no standardized sizes. Any manufacturer could, and did, size their garments any way they wished to. The increasing popularity of mail order made a standardized system logical, and computers made developing one possible. Measurements were taken of thousands of women, and a size 10 was arbitrarily decided to reflect the average. Women's sizing were a statistical measure not one based on "health."
A size "10" was never meant to reflect the same exact sized person for all eternity. It was expected that every so many years (just like a census) the measurments would be recalculated and a size 10 would always reflect the average.
Actually then, if it is true that the average woman in the US wears a size 14, by the way the sizes were meant to be calculated, that would be recalcuated to a 10. So we're not falling victim to vanity sizing, we're actually doing the reverse, as we're using an old standard.
The problem isn't the sizing it's our interpretation of what the size means. Women say "I am a size __" not "I wear a size __." Clothing sizing was never meant to be used as a measure of fitness, or identity but people misuse it.
Ideally, women's clothing would be sized like men's (there's no way to misinterpret 36 inch waist, and 32 inch inseam), but because women's bodies vary much more so than men's, that would be cumbersome. instead of 10 to 15 sizes of jeans, we would need 100 or more (hip, waist, inseam) and (to account for bust) dresses would require 1000 sizes.
Ideally, women's clothing would be sized like men's (there's no way to misinterpret 36 inch waist, and 32 inch inseam), but because women's bodies vary much more so than men's, that would be cumbersome. instead of 10 to 15 sizes of jeans, we would need 100 or more (hip, waist, inseam) and (to account for bust) dresses would require 1000 sizes.
I disagree with this bit. Replacing a size number with a measurement is a one-to-one operation. You pick a measurement, whether it's shoulders, bust, waist or hips, and use that measurement instead of size. It would be nice if things were sized to account also for body shape. But if the current size scheme does not take shape into account, it makes no sense to compare it to a measurement system that *does.* That's comparing apples and oranges.
The point is, you may not know if pants with the correct waist size will also fit your hips. But at least you will know you're picking up a 30" waist. Pick up a size 8 and who knows.
I agree that there wouldn't have to be 100 sizes. That was a bit of an exageration on my part. It's absolutely true that whether bust, waist or hips were the "standard" measurement, it would be possible to use those numbers as sizing.
I think vanity does play a role, in that women do buy according to vanity, and many wouldn't want to "announce" their size, but in essence I think we need to "get over ourselves". A size 12 may sound smaller than a size 38 (bust), but it isn't.
I've known so many women who will not wear a size bigger than they usually wear. Just won't do it. They don't care if the dress "runs small" they refuse to wear the larger size. That's craziness to me, because it's the fit of the clothing that is important, but not if you believe you "are" a particular size.
When I went shopping with my MIL and SIL for a dress for MIL to wear to her own wedding. She found a dress we all adored, but it was a bit too snug in the bust. She refused to try it on in a size 12, because she IS a 10. The dress was going to need to be altered anyway, so it wouldn't even BE a 12 when they finished with it. Instead she chose a dress none of us liked as much. Ugh - that's just frustrating to me.
Sizing is supposed to be a tool to better fit cothing, not to tell you anything about who you are, or even whether or how much you're over a healthy weight.
I'm TOTALLY with Ms Julie -- Jeans USED to be sized according to waist size and leg length when I was growing up. Instead of a size x, I was a 27/32(not sure about the leg length, but I remember the 27 inch waist fondly ). The jeans were all in bins according to waist size, so I knew I was a 27 and would find the appropriate leg length in that bin. Today, who knows WHAT size I am! It depends on how the manufacturer wants me to feel, I suppose.
And if there is ONE thing I've learned from What Not To Wear, is that clothes to fit properly NORMALLY need to be tailored regardless of how it is sized by the manufacturer. The same goes for menswear. If I go shopping for work clothes with DH, he gets a pair of pants with a waist 34, even though he is a 32, because the hips fit better and the legs fit better for him (he has a cyclists' body -- small waist, bigger hips/legs), and gets the waist tailored in.
Sizing has NO RELATIONSHIP to having clothes fit you better. NONE. It is designed simply to guide you to an article that may or may not fit. You know if you are a size 12, you won't start trying things on at size 22! But the manufacturers don't really give a flying fig if the size reflects the actual body. They DO care if they sell tons of size 10s.
If people expect off the rack clothes to fit them perfectly, well, they need to get used to disappointment!!!
You know, it's been a long time since I've really gone all-out clothes shopping, but the last few times were a bit frustrating.
For the past five years or so I normally wear a 2X t-shirt, and sometimes a 3X, depending on the brand.
But I'd go into a specialty store where they had a bunch of really cute girly shirts that I'd want, yet holding up the 3X? It looked like either a large or extra large, and there was no way it would fit me. Unless it was meant to be skin-tight . . . heh heh, with my rolls? No thank you. And I don't really care what the little number on the size is, but to get my hopes up over them carrying a 3X and then seeing that it's the largest size available yet still doesn't fit? *sighs*
So does this mean things are changing? Hmm.
All this makes me think of a friend that would buy a shirt two sizes too small just so she could have that smaller size yet she'd always wear a hoodie over it to hide the fact that it was so tight.
Last edited by Elladorine; 07-12-2009 at 12:55 AM.
See I find this particularly interesting because a few years back when I was in college one of my economics professors was actually on tv for a study she did involving sizes. She went to various stores ranging from Walmart up to Nordstroms and actually did a study of the waist sizes. She took several items of each size and a measuring tape and measured the waist and then made an average for that size for that store. What she found out was that the higher end the store (this was back in 2004 at least) the larger the waist measurement at each size and the larger the size the bigger the variation. For instance a size 6 might only vary by an inch between walmart and Nordstroms but a size 20 might vary by a few inches. At the time this was big news for me because I wore a 26 and never even tried anything on at Nordstroms because ours didn't carry anything over a 22. I did actually end up trying on a few things that fit after that but the prices were always too high since 'being a 22' wasn't worth the extra $100 for a skirt to me.
And the stupid, stupid, stupid thing of it is........
If you wear the size larger that fits properly, you LOOK smaller than if you squeeze your rolls and pudges into the smaller size. THAT is what everyone else can see, not the tag that is on the inside of the stinking garment and can be removed completely if it's that big a deal.
Clothing manufacturers are in business to make money and if women insist that they are a 10 when in fact they are a 14 ... then they will adjust their sizes so they can get the customers. Sad, but true.
As nation gains, 'overweight' is relative - article
). The jeans were all in bins according to waist size, so I knew I was a 27 and would find the appropriate leg length in that bin. Today, who knows WHAT size I am! It depends on how the manufacturer wants me to feel, I suppose.
