Live data from Hacker News

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

401–410 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure everyone who cares about getting a good fit (and isn't simply trying the clothes on in person) is looking at measurements, which you can usually find for any half-decent vendor (though it may take some poking around their site). The best have it per-garment (or per-cut), less-good but usually still alright is having a guide to the measurements they base their sizing off of. Even guys can't really get…

eBay? Can you elaborate? Do you mean used clothes like on Poshmark? And does eBay really publish decent clothes measurements?

Yeah, I buy a very high percentage of my clothes on eBay (and also Poshmark, but it ends up mostly being eBay).

What I don't buy used:

- Socks - Underwear - Gloves - Knits in general, as they're too likely to be messed up, though with the odd exception for pieces unusual enough that I figure it's likely they were treated OK, provided the price is low enough I can take a gamble. I think all such exceptions have been 100% linen or ~50/50 silk/linen blend sweaters (these are warm-weather sweaters, basically) - Jeans. If they get creases and fades I want them to be from me. Plus I have my size dialed in on Levi's STF 501s and I can already get those for like $40 on sale, so... what's the point? - Modern sportswear in general. I don't have much of this, but what I get, I buy new (though from e.g. Sierra Trading Post, if I can manage it)

Pretty much everything else comes from eBay or poshmark (exception: I don't think quite half my shoes are used, but a lot are).

Belts, ties, trousers, shirts, jackets, coats. Ebay or poshmark.

Shirts: I've got my sizing figured out really precisely with four or five brands. I can shop these really well by size tag. Like, I know with one Japanese brand I can get the "slim" fit of their very-largest Japanese size (these are neck + sleeve measurement shirt sizes) and it'll fit me great for a modern-fit button up shirt, except the sleeves will be a little too short (in the longest sleeve they offer! And I'm not even that big! LOL). I can get the "New York" "slim" from the same place, which they offer with a size one larger than that, and it'll be absolutely perfect, damn near as good as if I'd had a shirt custom made. I know stuff like that about a few brands. They're all nicer brands, so the sizing is quite consistent. All I have to do when I want a shirt is set a few eBay saved searches, and wait for one I want to come up (if there's not one on there already). Sometimes I've even snagged batches of shirts from someone with my size, resulting in stupid-low prices (like, $10/shirt) for things that look like-new.

Jackets: mostly blazers and sport coats. I know my body measurements, and I know the measurements of jackets that fit me well (arm length from shoulder and from pit; waist at middle or top button, depending on 3 or 2 button; length down the back; chest measured across pits; shoulder, front and back measurement, seam to seam). I have a sense of how to size up for winter garments that have thicker fabric and under which I'll probably want to wear thicker clothes. I know the range of standard jacket measurements (e.g. "40R" for a 40" chest, regular length) I'm likely to find what I need in. The vast majority of sellers provide enough relevant measurements that I can achieve an almost-perfect hit rate on these, and the nicer the piece the more likely they are to provide them. I'd say the average I've spent is $100-$120, and some of the ones I've got would have been . I've leaned on these measurements to also get things like a cotton canvas chore jacket, and a leather jacket. Brand knowledge is all but useless for sizing here, jackets vary far too much and many have been tailored. Closest it gets to being useful is that I know a couple outdoors/sporting brands that either make or used to make sport coats, and that theirs run way large (they probably expect that you'll need to move in them, and that you'll wear heavy clothes under them) so not to automatically skip over them because the nominal size would be too small in ~every other brand.

Trousers: Waist measurement is a must of course, nominal trouser sizes are basically gibberish even in good brands, and many trousers have been altered in the waist. Leg length a must (too long is fine, many nicer ones ship intentionally very-long anyway so you can alter them to your need, but too-short is a problem), measured crotch to end of leg so you're not including the rise. Ideally also leg width at the ankle, and rise (crotch to top of waist), though those can be sort-of eyeballed. Many listings will let you know if there's fabric to let the waist out or leg down, and roughly how much. Like with shirts, I have a good

Suits: for a 2-piece, it's just jacket + trouser, there's nothing new here. For vests (if it's a 3-piece, or if buying an odd vest) the main thing to care about is pit-to-pit chest, which I find to be a little more forgiving (I can go very-slightly smaller) than a jacket provided the vest material is on the thinner end, and maybe the length neck-to-hem, especially if you've got a notably long or short torso.

Coats: Like a jacket, but size up an inch or so, maybe more (for some styles that are meant to be worn very loose, a lot more, potentially). These may go over jackets or other thick or layered clothes (e.g. heavy sweaters), and generally you want them to have a looser fit anyway. If you buy them like a jacket you'll find you can only comfortably wear them over a shirt, which makes for a pretty limited coat. Or, if you have measurements of existing coats you like, just base your decisions on those (basically same measurements as a jacket)

-----

It looks like a lot, all laid out like that, but if you already have clothes that fit well in each category, it's really just a half-hour with a surface to lay them flat on, and a measuring tape. Pro tips: measure several examples of each as there's probably a small range of each measurement that works well, pay attention to material thickness and how they fit over different thicknesses of clothes for e.g. jackets to get a sense of what to look for for different seasons, and check with fit guides online to make sure these clothes really do fit correctly (they may feel OK, but look off in ways that may be hard to pin down if you don't know what to look for), and measuring clothes that don't fit quite right can also be useful to figure out what's plainly too much, or too little, in a given dimension. Also, consider as you try on for fit stuff like "do I prefer these trousers to those because of, say, the rise? OK, so I need to make a note of which rise measurement, specifically, I prefer..."

Boom, you've got what you need, and will only rarely need to re-do any of that (waist and chest, especially, may shift a little, and we all get shorter eventually, but otherwise you're good). Measure yourself, too (true waist, hip, chest, maybe neck... I also have hand [around, at the knuckles] and head for gloves and hats, LOL) and you're solidly ready to buy clothes with reasonable confidence online, used or new. If you do get something that fits wrong, measure whatever part's not fitting right to help refine your criteria.

Measurements of your own body are mostly helpful for buying new. Lots of retailers will provide size charts based on body measurements, not garment measurements. For used stuff, it's gonna be 100% garment measurements, which will always be at least a little larger than the corresponding body measurements (so it's simplest to just measure stuff you have that fits well, for this)

Re: Sizing chaos

#402
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to easily, and quickly read scientific literature is not a universal trait. You're in the top 1% (probably top 0.1%?) if you're able to do that and actually understand the source material. The average person has a hard time reading and fully understanding a newspaper article or cooking instructions on a pre-prepared meal.

The first paragraph is fine -- I agree. The second paragraph is a silly hyperbole that comes up over and over again on HN and needs to die. Major newspapers are written for about 8th grade level reading comprehension. Cooking instructions on a prep'd meal are probably much lower -- maybe 5th grade. The "average person" (whatever that term means) living in highly developed nations can read at 8th grade level or above.

Well, except for America, according to statistics :P

Re: Sizing chaos

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised recently when browsing on Amazon (I rarely buy clothing/shoes there, but I did a few times). I chose my usual size, but Amazon told me "nope we think you want one size smaller, based on your history and our data for this product".

I’m curious to know if that was an accurate assessment by Amazon and if you were (or would have been?) satisfied with the purchase of their suggestion.

I have gone to the manufacturer's sites (I tend to avoid Amazon for purchases over about $50, because fraud).

They usually have something like "If you are a 10.5 for Adiddas, then you are a 10 for us" kind of thing.

Those have worked for me.

Re: Sizing chaos

#404

What ticks me off in this is the statement, that a certain body shape is “unattainable for most”. I’m pretty sure the author does not have the data to back this up. Difficult? Yes. Requiring commitment? Absolutely. Unattainable? No. I really don’t care what body shape anyone is comfortable with. But as someone, who has struggled hard all his life not to be obese, I find it irresponsible to outright declare something…

It's not just about that, though. Have you looked at many women's bodies? Some are almost like men: broad shoulders, narrow hips. Some are like boys: narrow everything. There are "hourglass" shapes, "pear" shapes, big boobs... so many different shapes.

It might be possible to have a one-dimensional sizing scale for men's clothing, but it seems impossible for women's. There's at least 3 or 4 dimensions that are independent and nothing to do with being fat.

It's true, everyone can be not fat. But I don't blame people for this. I blame fast food and us not cracking down on food addiction as a society.

Re: Sizing chaos

#405
post #373

What ticks me off in this is the statement, that a certain body shape is “unattainable for most”. I’m pretty sure the author does not have the data to back this up. Difficult? Yes. Requiring commitment? Absolutely. Unattainable? No. I really don’t care what body shape anyone is comfortable with. But as someone, who has struggled hard all his life not to be obese, I find it irresponsible to outright declare something…

There is the fundamental thing of skeletal structure and build though - people naturally are entirely different shapes, regardless of fat or excess weight, wich is what the comment is mostly referring to in my eyes. I'm built very tall and very spindly, so there are certain body shapes that I will never have (or want, but that's a different question) purely from the point of view that my body just isn't the right bas…

True but nobody changes shape fundamentally after puberty. The only change is fat and, to a much smaller extent, muscle (not including anabolic steroid use).

Re: Sizing chaos

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 res…

There is a wide gulf between “when you exercise your body saves calories elsewhere in the day…when you eat less your metabolism slows down” and “some people can’t lose weight on 50% calorie restriction.”

The former is very well supported in the literature. The latter is only supported in low quality studies like where people self report their diet.

The CICO hypothesis accounts for metabolism. Your weight is a function of CICO and time. You can track calories in, weight, and time. From there you derive calories out.

The problem isn’t that CICO is wrong, the problem is that it turns out actual caloric restriction over time is really really hard.

The current best advice for weight loss is to avoid highly palatable and/or calorie dense foods, prefer foods that are highly satiating and low in calories, and strength training helps. Do whatever cardio you need for heart health; more cardio is at best unnecessary and at worst demotivating because extra effort will not net extra results. Slow and steady is easier to stick to.

One problem is that even though small deficits lead to more long term success, small deficits are very hard to track, and very hard to stick to.

When the size of your calorie deficit is two tablespoons of ranch dressing and a cookie per day, it’s easy to blow past it without even realizing.

CICO isn’t a diet strategy. By itself it won’t help you lose weight any more than kinematic equations help you to throw a ball.

But it’s not wrong.

Re: Sizing chaos

#408
post #407

The opposite issue exists in men's clothing - it seems to be harder to find clothes that fit shorter/smaller men. "Medium" sizes tend to be quite large. I made a page about this myself - Model is 6'2" Wearing Size Medium - https://pilk.website/2/model-is-6-2-wearing-size-medium

Don't get me started on torso lengths! I'm 5'11 but wear a 30" inseam pants. My torso is long, so most shirts are too short for me. I'm not overweight, I'm 160 lbs, so finding a shirt that actually fits me is very difficult. If it's long enough, its too wide. If its the right width, it's too short.

Re: Sizing chaos

#409
post #407

The opposite issue exists in men's clothing - it seems to be harder to find clothes that fit shorter/smaller men. "Medium" sizes tend to be quite large. I made a page about this myself - Model is 6'2" Wearing Size Medium - https://pilk.website/2/model-is-6-2-wearing-size-medium

Don't get me started on torso lengths! I'm 5'11 but wear a 30" inseam pants. My torso is long, so most shirts are too short for me. I'm not overweight, I'm 160 lbs, so finding a shirt that actually fits me is very difficult. If it's long enough, its too wide. If its the right width, it's too short.

Bruh. Short leg long torso bro here as well. I try to buy shirts in tall sizes. I can tuck them in!

Good news, Italian sports cars and motorcycles seem designed for our body.

Re: Sizing chaos

#410

For everyone struggling with clothes sizing and having a hacker mindset, I can't recommend enough buying a sewing machine (~100EUR on a used market, ~150 new gets you a reasonable starter one you won't outgrow any time soon) and giving clothes alterations a try. Finding a tailor that understands you / you agree with is an option too, if time is a hard limit (though I'm not sure it's altogrther that much quicker). In…

I keep coming cross these videos on youtube from Cornelius Quiring, and it's been making me think about trying it out. If anyone is looking for videos about drafting patterns for clothing, I think he's stuff seems pretty approachable!

https://www.youtube.com/corneliusquiring

Post reply on HN