a good supplement for this is the Articles of Interest episode on plus size clothing: https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/plus-sizes
Sizing chaos
211–220 of 458 posts
Re: Sizing chaos
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be in perfect shape and still not find clothes that fit. The issue IS the sizes.
Expecting mass-market, lowest-common-denominator products to be tailored to your special circumstance is the issue. Normalize going to a tailor, instead of grumbling about how you aren't benefiting enough from the sweatshops mass retailers are running.
But they're not lowest-common-denominator products. If they were, clothing designers would be tailoring clothes for a rectangular figure. The article clearly shows that only 12% of women have that "hourglass" figure and yet, by design, almost all the clothing manufacturers are tailoring their clothes for this shape, regardless of size.
Re: Sizing chaos
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
That there is variance in energy expenditure both within a population and within a person over time doesn't mean that a caloric deficit doesn't work. It just means that using a single scalar value (which is usually a gross estimate) to drive your caloric intake is a poor approach. The body has means to regulate it's energy expenditure to maintain homeostasis, and in some people it can be a hundreds of kcal difference…
For some people, a 50% "deficit" fails. And the entire concept of "X workout burns Y calories" is completely bunk. Again, there have been multiple studies to this effect.
It's not physically possible for a 50% deficit to fail, what you probably mean is that their energy expenditure was incorrectly estimated at +50%.
Re: Sizing chaos
#214The 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 has mounds of data that to speak to exactly how the clothing sizes ARE the issue. Inconsistencies within brands, across brands, shifting vanity sizes, and shapes designed to fit only 12% of women. And yet, the top comment is about obesity...
Yes, obesity is clearly an epidemic. But discounting the entire article's premise to point that out?
Re: Sizing chaos
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expecting mass-market, lowest-common-denominator products to be tailored to your special circumstance is the issue. Normalize going to a tailor, instead of grumbling about how you aren't benefiting enough from the sweatshops mass retailers are running.
But they're not lowest-common-denominator products. If they were, clothing designers would be tailoring clothes for a rectangular figure. The article clearly shows that only 12% of women have that "hourglass" figure and yet, by design, almost all the clothing manufacturers are tailoring their clothes for this shape, regardless of size.
You think companies are all deliberately leaving big money on the table by making hourglass clothes as an oopsie?
They're doing it because people are buying clothes based on superficial appearance, and most people prefer the aesthetics of the hourglass shape.
Rectangular clothing doesn't sell as well because it doesn't look as good on a mannequin even if it fits better.
Re: Sizing chaos
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No you're not. That's the size your brands of choice advertise to you so you think that you're slimmer than you are.
For anyone else wondering. Im also a 33 or 34 in pretty much any brand, just measured my waistline (where my pants usually sit), 38.5 inches.
Never knew!
Re: Sizing chaos
#217Women 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 cloth…
and then you buy two different brands of pants of the same w/l and they fit completely differently /)_-)
And you buy the same brand and model of pants from the same retailer and they still fit completely differently due to variation in the product. Pretty annoying, I just want to buy my Levi's 510s every couple years and get the same thing each time.
Re: Sizing chaos
#218I just want to say that this is one of the best pieces of data journalism that I have ever seen.
Re: Sizing chaos
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
and then you buy two different brands of pants of the same w/l and they fit completely differently /)_-)
And you buy the same brand and model of pants from the same retailer and they still fit completely differently due to variation in the product. Pretty annoying, I just want to buy my Levi's 510s every couple years and get the same thing each time.
yeah I dont buy pants without trying them on now, and usually still need to get them tailored. buying oversized shirts is fine online tho because if you get them a bit wrong in either direction its fine.
Re: Sizing chaos
#220I just want to say that this is one of the best pieces of data journalism that I have ever seen.
I never check pudding.cool for some reason, but I always smash the link when I see one