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

221–230 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#221

Post by 0xy »

Gigachad wrote: post #192
tirant wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am really surprised about the sharp increase in body size by age in the USA. I have just anecdotal experience here in Europe, but I know for a fact that all the females in my family have kept the same size since they were 16-18 years old. That’s also my experience with the male side of the family.

Most adults in the US become physically inactive after they leave school/collage and move to an area where they have to drive everywhere, while sitting in an office the rest of the day. While I'm well aware weight gain requires over consumption, I feel there is an under appreciated importance on being somewhat mobile rather than sitting/laying down for 23 hours a day

You can live a completely sedentary lifestyle and lose or maintain weight through eating normal amounts of food. Exercise is not the problem, overeating consistently is.

For women, it's very common to consume sugary coffee flavored drinks and this behavior is glamorized on social media.

For men, the problem is worse.

Re: Sizing chaos

#222

Post by segmondy »

WesleyJohnson wrote: post #214
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 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?

Thanks, any one with kids experiences this. It's so frustrating. For the same kid you could literally have 5 different sizes that are the same. So you have to keep track of sizes by brand. Trying a new brand is often an adventure. Worse of all, if you come across a sale and rush to take advantage of it. You could end up having lots of items shipped only to have to return every single one of them. It's a mess.

Re: Sizing chaos

#223

Post by deathanatos »

bubblewand wrote: post #102
deathanatos wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pair of men's jeans. If I lay them flat, while buttoned, and measure the width of the cloth with a cloth measure, I get 16.5", so roughly a 33" circumference. They're a 32"x34" size pair, … so that's basically spot on. Note that, at least AIUI, the measurement printed on the pair is the wearer's waist measurement, so we thus expect the measured circumference of the top of the jeans to be slightly wider, sinc…

The outer measurement will also be larger than the inner. If your waist measures precisely 32", a 32" outer-measurement waistband ( sans some stretch) will be too snug.

While I don't disagree, the fabric is a few millimeters thick. I think there's more error in my measurement with a cloth measure with them laid on the bed than the inner vs. outer diameter.

Re: Sizing chaos

#224

Post by altairprime »

atestu wrote: post #203
strken wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a dude who is 6'7" with a 35" waist (34" in brands that do vanity sizing) and an inseam that can handle a 34" even if it's not quite long enough, I agree that it's tough. One of the more annoying problems is that the MT shirt size doesn't seem to exist where I shop and LT flares outwards at the bottom. At least it's pretty easy to get a shirt taken in.

I’m not affiliated with it but I recommend americantall.com They only do clothes for tall people.

(And for women who’ve made it this deep in the thread, Long Tall Sally has been pretty excellent over time.)

Re: Sizing chaos

#225

Post by Gigachad »

0xy wrote: post #221
Gigachad wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most adults in the US become physically inactive after they leave school/collage and move to an area where they have to drive everywhere, while sitting in an office the rest of the day. While I'm well aware weight gain requires over consumption, I feel there is an under appreciated importance on being somewhat mobile rather than sitting/laying down for 23 hours a day

You can live a completely sedentary lifestyle and lose or maintain weight through eating normal amounts of food. Exercise is not the problem, overeating consistently is. For women, it's very common to consume sugary coffee flavored drinks and this behavior is glamorized on social media. For men, the problem is worse.

In theory sure, but teenagers love sugary drinks and burgers too, sugar drinks exist all over the world too where obesity rates are significantly lower. While you can be slim while sitting all day doing nothing, being physically active is massively important for your health.

The fact that the particular area you live in determines so much of the probability a person would be obese suggests the location plays a huge part. While sugary drinks are marketed and popular everywhere.

Re: Sizing chaos

#226

Post by [deleted] »

ses1984 wrote: post #204
JoshTriplett wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you actually saying some people don’t lose weight on a 50% caloric deficit? Is there any evidence of that?

[deleted]

Re: Sizing chaos

#227

Post by JoshTriplett »

slopinthebag wrote: post #213
JoshTriplett wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

No, what I mean is that their body's energy expenditure changed in response to the change in their caloric intake, with no other changes taking place.

Re: Sizing chaos

#228

Post by fao_ »

apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #137
goodmythical wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely curious as to which words in the cited are 'confusing science speak' in your view. Having read the article, I can't venture a guess without feeling condescending...non-conforming? Compensatory? Legitimately confused.

They use precise but indirect terminology e.g., "heightened level of appearance self-esteem" rather than "confident in their appearance". Indirect phrasing e.g., "they respond more favorably to products that can help to repair their damaged appearance self-esteem" rather than something direct and easy to understand like "they feel bad that they don't fit, so they end up buying other things like makeup/jewelry to feel…

Maybe it's me, but only the first quote seems cumbersome, and wasn't very cumbersome in the article when I read it in context.

Re: Sizing chaos

#229

Post by iteria »

WarmWash wrote: post #35
socalgal2 wrote: post #25

This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to considered victims so lets make up something to whine about" A few concrete issues: (1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should relabel the clothing…

Its like the pockets complaints. Women desperately want pants with pockets, but pockets throw off the aesthetic, so they don't sell well.

Is that actually true though? Because I remember distinctly as a teen somewhere in the 00s where pockets stopped being an option. I could not and still cannot buy them in regular stores. I have to go to speciality stores or order online to get pockets. A lot of women have become resigned, but I rarely know a woman who isn't very excited about pockets for every day wear.

I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting.

While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.

Re: Sizing chaos

#230

Post by lucaslazarus »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #38
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…

>"Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the others do not. I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the incumbents. I would have figured the convenien…

re: consistency

https://xkcd.com/927/

Post reply on HN