Jeans from the 80s vs Jeans from today
Options
Replies
-
I can only speak about men's jeans, which have always been sold by waist and inseam. The waist measurements have always been approximate at best, since even standard fit jeans sit not at the waist but just above the hips. But yes, I'm convinced that jeans run at least 2 inches larger for the stated waist measurement than they used to. My true waist measures about 33 inches, but 32 inch Levi's are very loose on me -- that's what I'm wearing right now, and they'd fall off without a belt -- and I can comfortably fit into 30 inch. I never bothered measuring my waist when I was younger, but when I was about the same weight as I am now 30 years ago, 32 or 33 inch jeans fit me just right.
I bought 2 pairs a few years back of 505 40 W. one pair sat comfortably around my waist and thighs... the other felt like they were going to crush my thighs for at least a few hours till I got them to stretch out.0 -
32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
this.. and the default fit of jeans is different now too... Most fit lower down between natural waist and hips, which would be a larger circumference measurement for the same size person than the old higher-waisted 'mom jeans'.5 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.8 -
32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
This was my thought as well. Vanity sizing usually applies to sizes (6/8/4) not to inch measurements. That's weird, although in the picture the waists of the jeans don't look much different.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
This was my thought as well. Vanity sizing usually applies to sizes (6/8/4) not to inch measurements. That's weird, although in the picture the waists of the jeans don't look much different.
The waist size is difference is pretty big actually. There is nearly an inch on each side. The picture does it no justice.0 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »It may not be “vanity” sizing, but designers and manufacturers are having to make sizes larger so they actually fit the majority of the population. If we go back to when a 12 is like an 8 today, how would most people find clothes to wear? The most popular size is now a 12. Would that be like a 16 from the 80s? So what’s a 14 or 16?
I have lost 60 lbs and have started trying on size 8 pants/jeans to see if I’m down another size. Most are fitting well. Today I tried on a 8/29 jeans and they were too big! Eye rolll. There is no way I should be wearing a size 6! I’m still overweight by 3.8 lbs according to the BMI charts. It actually made me annoyed.
I agree with this, and my sister can wear a 0 or 2 and has mostly been underweight, but she is tall. My other sister wears a 4 at 125 lbs. My cousin wore an 8 at 160. How small are you, unless you are short, if a zero doesn't fit? Why would there need to be a lot of sizes for people who are underweight and at an unhealthy size which is just as unhealthy as being big. I mean even Lane Bryant only goes up to a 26/28. ( They shouldn't even go up that higj.) I really don't see the vanity sizing at all. I mean the people in my life who wear 0, 2,and 4s can't really be much thinner healthfully.5 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I mean even Lane Bryant only goes up to a 26/28. ( They shouldn't even go up that higj.) .
wat. Yeah, anyone larger should be covered in a king size blanket. I don't think so.
Wow...1 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
11 -
seltzermint555 wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I mean even Lane Bryant only goes up to a 26/28. ( They shouldn't even go up that higj.) .
wat. Yeah, anyone larger should be covered in a king size blanket. I don't think so.
Wow...
I am big. I just think it is a wake up call to not fit in sizes that are plus size and it would help some bigger people to not experience the suffering of being big if they stopped at a smaller size and get the wake up call sooner. I got to a 26/28 and knowing I couldn't get any bigger halted my weight gain. I just wish that would have happened sooner. It is a lot of pain to be over 300 lbs0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »I can only speak about men's jeans, which have always been sold by waist and inseam. The waist measurements have always been approximate at best, since even standard fit jeans sit not at the waist but just above the hips. But yes, I'm convinced that jeans run at least 2 inches larger for the stated waist measurement than they used to. My true waist measures about 33 inches, but 32 inch Levi's are very loose on me -- that's what I'm wearing right now, and they'd fall off without a belt -- and I can comfortably fit into 30 inch. I never bothered measuring my waist when I was younger, but when I was about the same weight as I am now 30 years ago, 32 or 33 inch jeans fit me just right.
I bought 2 pairs a few years back of 505 40 W. one pair sat comfortably around my waist and thighs... the other felt like they were going to crush my thighs for at least a few hours till I got them to stretch out.
Check the labels for where they were made. Levi's are no longer made in the US, but all over. I have Levi's made in Mexico, Egypt, Honduras, and Bangladesh, and they all fit differently. (And are of different quality. The zipper broke on the Bangladesh-made jeans a couple of weeks after I bought them.)0 -
MistressSara wrote: »Here's another complication: I once saw a video of a stack of garments being cut- the pieces on the bottom came out a different size than the pieces on the top. It's an expected variation.
Yep. I experienced this at Ann Taylor. I tried on a pair of jeans that fit me perfectly, so I grabbed a second pair of the exact same style and size. After I got home I put on the second pair and it was WAY to big on me. I wasn't happy heading back to the store to return them.3 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »Here's another complication: I once saw a video of a stack of garments being cut- the pieces on the bottom came out a different size than the pieces on the top. It's an expected variation.
Yep. I experienced this at Ann Taylor. I tried on a pair of jeans that fit me perfectly, so I grabbed a second pair of the exact same style and size. After I got home I put on the second pair and it was WAY to big on me. I wasn't happy heading back to the store to return them.
Same thing happened to me at Ann Taylor Loft! Except the pair that fit me must have been from the "bigger" batch. When I went back to grab more of the same size, they were too snug.
0 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
Are those US 8 jeans? I’m 5’8” wearing size 8 jeans and I’m not as slim as you. A UK 8 is like a US 4.2 -
I remember noticing the size issue when I was a kid in the 80"s though too. I remember very specifically realizing that name brand pants were much smaller than cheap ones, which is funny, because now it seems to be the other way around.1
-
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
Are those US 8 jeans? I’m 5’8” wearing size 8 jeans and I’m not as slim as you. A UK 8 is like a US 4.
Yes, these are US 8.0 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
Are those US 8 jeans? I’m 5’8” wearing size 8 jeans and I’m not as slim as you. A UK 8 is like a US 4.
Yes, these are US 8.
I own a random size 8 dress that fits me too. And I'm currently a size 0. So what!
I'm 5'2" and the most I've ever weighed, aside from pregnancy, was about 125. Even then I was never a size 8.
Not to call *kitten*, but... never mind. Yup, *kitten*.
6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
This was my thought as well. Vanity sizing usually applies to sizes (6/8/4) not to inch measurements. That's weird, although in the picture the waists of the jeans don't look much different.
Nope, vanity sizing is about the same in the 'waist measurement' sizes as well: this image is from an Esquire magazine article from 2010: http://ckthomascustomapparel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/vanity.jpg
0 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
If this was true, there would only be size 0 in the petite department. But petite clothing is for 5'4" and under. Plenty of 00's, 0, 2, and size 4 in the regular ladies department for women 5'5" and taller.
0 -
Also, my point is not that all size six women need to diet. My point is that vanity sizing is a real thing, so whereas a size six used to mean you were as thin as could be, now you will find *some* women wearing a size six on a diet. And not because they are anorexic.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions