Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#141

Post by toomuchtodo »

whackernews wrote: post #124
toomuchtodo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Sizing chaos

#142

Post by panic »

xxxx_xxxx wrote: post #88
TMWNN wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 "heavyweig…

[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.

Re: Sizing chaos

#143

Post by Rendello »

bubblewand wrote: post #131
Rendello wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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...

Re: Sizing chaos

#144

Post by [deleted] »

diath wrote: post #89

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 break…

[deleted]

Re: Sizing chaos

#145

Post by NewsaHackO »

magneticnorth wrote: post #56

"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.

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.

Re: Sizing chaos

#146

Post by altairprime »

8organicbits wrote: post #134
diath wrote: post #89

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 break…

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

Re: Sizing chaos

#147

Post by c22 »

munificent wrote: post #97
diath wrote: post #89

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 break…

> 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.

Re: Sizing chaos

#148

Post by throwerxyz »

panic wrote: post #123
diath wrote: post #89

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 break…

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…

[flagged]

Re: Sizing chaos

#149

Post by brianleb »

altairprime wrote: post #94
magneticnorth wrote: post #56

"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 rec…

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.

Re: Sizing chaos

#150

Post by flyinghamster »

eszed wrote: post #74

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, base…

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.
Post reply on HN