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

231–240 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#231

Post by dang »

burgerzzz wrote: post #114
munificent wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

I'm guessing that you meant this in a semi-humorous and hyperbolic way rather than a mean way, but it would probably be good to review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. A comment like this wouldn't need too much to come across as friendly rather than aggressive.

Re: Sizing chaos

#232

Post by albedoa »

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.

> They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.

I walk by Starbucks every day without consuming 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks. You think that's due to their agency??

Re: Sizing chaos

#234

Post by slopinthebag »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #227
slopinthebag wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The body may try to maintain homeostasis but 50% sounds way too high. Someone with a tdee of 2200 kcal will not be able to maintain their weight at 1100 calories for very long.

Re: Sizing chaos

#235

Post by gbear605 »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #73
choilive wrote: post #66

If we can have mass produced fast fashion from runway to store in weeks... Why not tailored clothing at scale? Have a set of portable body measurements that can be sent to any retailer - make an order and have it sent from factory to door in a week or two. Or get a size that is close enough - bring it to your neighborhood tailor. Most alterations are simple and not very expensive. Unfortunately sizing is just a leaky…

We do. For men it's brands like Proper Cloth and for women it's Eshakti or creators on Etsy

Bad news about Eshakti, the company shut down and didn’t deliver many outstanding orders.

Re: Sizing chaos

#236

Post by bfung »

Hot take (?):

The random sizing today is great:

* If you want a better fit, go physically to a store instead of shopping online and try them on.

* the vanity part is also fine, no need to cause outrage at raising the number and making people depressed cause they think they're even more "fat". It doesn't need to be "optimized"

* Only serves online retail to "standardize", but guess what, 15th standard also sucks... .

Enjoyed the presentation of the site. :)

Re: Sizing chaos

#237

Post by JoshTriplett »

slopinthebag wrote: post #234
JoshTriplett wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The body may try to maintain homeostasis but 50% sounds way too high. Someone with a tdee of 2200 kcal will not be able to maintain their weight at 1100 calories for very long.

Adaptation in energy expenditure includes both metabolic adaptation as well as "NEAT" ("non-exercise activity thermogenesis"); the latter includes subconscious changes in posture, fidgeting, and various other things that can increase/decrease the body's energy expenditure by a massive degree, in an effort to (as far as people can tell) maintain a "set point" in the body that is difficult to change. This set point resists both weight gain and weight loss, both attempting to resist the change in the first place and attempting to undo it if successful.

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to lose weight through sufficiently large caloric restriction. I'm observing that it is not anywhere close to as simple as "CICO", because CO is heavily a function of CI, rather than the popular incorrect perception of CO being things like "exercise".

Re: Sizing chaos

#238

Post by echelon »

coldtea wrote: post #92
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…

> 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 brands? Because - in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine. Some might fit slightly better or worse, but unless you have very special body shape (and even extreme th…

> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".

This is how many brands originally blow up and grow famous. Especially in Asia.

You make clothing in sizes only extremely slim people can wear.

This is an extremely popular brand that specifically does this, and it's hardly the only one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandy_Melville

Re: Sizing chaos

#239

Post by mikepurvis »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #200
mikepurvis wrote: post #180

Earlier 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.

Ha, TIL

Re: Sizing chaos

#240

Post by _main »

If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available.

The real concern I have is how the large majority of westerners are overweight or obese. That's a serious issue way beyond the practicality of buying clothes

Post reply on HN