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

171–180 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#171

Post by AlienRobot »

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.

>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average waist size is 38.5 inches (98 centimeters) for women older than 20 in the United States.2 This represents an increase of roughly two inches since the 1990s, reflecting broader trends in rising rates of obesity and metabolic conditions.3 Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Mean Body Weight, Height, Waist Circumference, and Body Mass Index Among Adults: United States, 1999-2000 Through 2015-2016. Natl Health Stat Report. 2018;(122):1-16.

https://www.health.com/average-waist-size-for-women-11796627...

Re: Sizing chaos

#172

Post by crote »

Galaco wrote: post #60

At a previous employer this was a problem we identified (and larger retailer customers) had recognised, although for other reasons. We had developed a size recommendation system for them, that used real product measurements in every size and a method of obtaining your body measurements from fully clothed photos. We also offered a statistical average measurement set for those who couldn’t/wouldn’t take photos of thems…

There's also a surprising lack of consistency item-to-item. More than once I have grabbed two of the same pants (same model, same size label, next to each other on the rack) and one would fit well while the other was way too large or way too small.

Re: Sizing chaos

#173

Post by harrall »

Women have it much worse but it’s the same with men’s clothes.

A “large” men’s shirt from Uniqlo is totally different from a “large” from Volcom and so on. Start making your own clothes and realize there’a a thousand dimensions to a shirt and “waistline” is barely scratching the surface.

Don’t get me started on shoes, especially if you have wide feet. Something like “wide” means totally different things. Unlike clothes, poorly fitting shoes will absolutely destroy you.

At least pants have WxL.

I’ve come to chalk up clothes sizing as a natural complexity of life.

Re: Sizing chaos

#174

Post by cucumber3732842 »

munificent wrote: post #133
burgerzzz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Read my comment more carefully. If a company put a giant a giant bollard in the middle of the interstate and someone hit it, are you saying that the company bears zero responsibility for that?

Are millions of people voluntarily paying money to hit the bollard daily or thereabouts when not hitting the bollard is free and takes less time out of their day?

Yeah it would be better if everyone just didn't eat crap but crap is what people want.

Re: Sizing chaos

#175

Post by KittenInABox »

diath wrote: post #159
toomuchtodo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incorrect. GLP-1s modify food desires as well. “Will power” is merely hormone levels in this regard. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... > Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes and obesity treatment. Their effects on appetite and satiety are well established, but less is known about their associations with food purchases. Cas…

Food desires are simply addictions like smoking. If you cease consuming high amounts of processed food and sugar (through the inhibition of hunger), then you also kill these cravings.

GLP-1 functioning as methodone is fine for me tbh. Medically assisted addiction management is pretty gold-standard for a lot of addictions!

Re: Sizing chaos

#177

Post by JoshTriplett »

diath wrote: post #154
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.

The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work - if you force yourself into a caloric deficit through the inhibition of hunger hormones using drugs that you will lose weight. It has nothing to do with people choosing to eat highly processed unhealthy foods over healthier options. When you're on Ozempic or peptides like Retatrutide/Tirzepatide you don't think "I will not eat a bag of chips toda…

> The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work

This is incorrect, as demonstrated over and over again. For many people's bodies, consuming less will result in the body changing its metabolism to burn less, and not dipping into fat stores. Conversely, for many people's bodies, exercising more does not in fact change their metabolism and the amount of energy they burn. (There are studies that going from "zero" to "not zero" makes a meaningful difference, but "not zero" to "quite active" often doesn't.) "CICO" is not useful or actionable for many people.

Re: Sizing chaos

#178

Post by mikepurvis »

mauvehaus wrote: post #168
zetanor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

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 abov…

I'm 6'0 34/32 and even still feel some of this; L shirts are baggy, but M shirts (and sweaters) are often too short in the length and arms, especially after a wash.

And it's not my imagination; I have a few custom made dress shirts from Maxwell's and those absolutely do feel correct in both dimensions.

A tall medium where available will typically work for me but most brands don't have it at all and those that do it's a special order so what's even the point of being in the store; I might add well have just done a blind buy online from home.

Re: Sizing chaos

#179

Post by harrall »

jcims wrote: post #28
fishtoaster wrote: post #14

This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…

I wonder if understanding a particular brand's sizing drives up repeat purchases.

Yes but it’s multiple dimensions other than just waistline. e.g Some brands make boxier shirts and others use longer cuts.

Because “my style” prefers one over the other, I know when I buy from a certain brand so it’s going to fit on me better.

If if waistlines were standardized it wouldn’t really account for all the other measurements.

Re: Sizing chaos

#180

Post by mikepurvis »

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…

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.
Post reply on HN