Vanity sizing
Replies
-
Cut and style of clothing has an effect on sizing too. One pair of size 12 jeans might fit beautifully and you want to wear them all day while the other feels vaguely uncomfortable. It can be in part because of small but important fitting issues that add up.0
-
lucerorojo wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.
I agree with you about how patterns are cut. It is interesting, though, how differently we define "hourglass." Since I have a 7" difference between bust/waist and waist/hips, a 10" difference seems huge to me! My hips are 35" so if I want low-rise jeans to fit, I have to buy a 24-25 (even though my actual waist measurement is 28"). And people wonder why shopping is such a traumatic experience for women...
In my late teens and 20s my measurements were 36, 24/25, 36, which was a typical measurement back then (80s) for young women, which is 10-12 inch difference between waist/bust, and waist hips.
I was 34-27-34, which was also pretty typical. I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I don't think basic body shapes have changed since we were younger. You were an hourglass and I was a ruler. Still am.
I was just responding to the other post that said that she had a difficult time buying clothes these days because the ratios had changed. I can't say if that's the case because I'm no longer that measurement, but in my early adulthood (1980s/90s) I never had any issues with clothes not fitting even with the 10-12 inch waist to bust/hips difference. Things are never standard across the board since different designers and stores do things differently so it doesn't mean much.
I actually DO think basic body shapes have changed though and not just sizes in proportion. This is why the VANITY sizing exists in the first place. Women are BIGGER than they were back then and rather than everyone wearing a size 18 or 20, the numbers keep getting smaller.
People make it sound like there's been a huge change. Isnt the average size a 14 at 5'4" and 167 lbs? People are like 25 lbs fatter than in the 60 s but there is also more variety of people living in the states. Considering how prevalent food is now 25 lbs isn't much. I mean that's like at most 2 sizes different in clothing. Healthy BMI ranges were actually lowered during the 90s so many people became overweight overnight. That contributes to more people being considered overweight. The average woman would almost be a normal bmi prior to the changes. Are people really that concerned that they may wear a 6 as opposed to an 8 or 10?1 -
My sister is 5'4" and about that weight and i think she's a 4. Stores really are sizes differently and people are shaped differently. Maybe you should try another store? Even for big women some can wear a 12\14 at over 200 lbs where others are an 18.gradchica27 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »I always assumed (just an assumption, no supporting data) that the higher the averge weight of a store's audience is, the worse thwir vanity sizing would be?
I always thought the same. I’m a 2 in Ann Taylor Loft, but a 0 (sometimes a zero is too big, hah) in Ann Taylor, which is for slightly older women than Loft (so probably a bit bigger). Other stores targeted to 30s-40s women (J Jill, Talbots) are sometimes entirely too large for me (although maybe they’ve added smaller sizes since I last tried them on about 7-10 years ago). I’m 5’4”, 127-133lbs, 33-26-34. I shouldn’t be too small for a small, and I’m definitely not a 0.1 -
I'm so used to the wonky sizing that I don't even worry about it anymore, I just try everything on and go with whatever fits.
It is funny with vintage though. I would be a little bit alarmed (generally wearing 10-12) if I needed a size 16 or 18 dress at any modern place...just because I haven't worn those sizes since I was still over 200 lb. But a vintage 16 that fits like a glove is fine by me.
I've gotta admit though, I see all of these vintage 80s-90s jeans in thrift stores that are totally in line with the trendy "mom jeans" and I can't bring myself to buy any. The sizes are depressing. The waists are super narrow even on a 14.0 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »Unfortunately I have gone up and down in weight over the last few decades. Every time I’m at or near my goal weight I’m extremely frustrated with how dresses are made. The designers assume the bust and hips are around the same. My current measurements are 5’8” tall, 40.5” bust (size 14), 31” waist (size 12) and 39” hips (size 10). To wear a size 12 dress I have to lose 1.5 inches off my bust down to 39”. I don’t think that will ever happen. I will continue to get smaller hips and waist, but the bust line doesn’t change that much. I like curvy dresses because they show my figure and show I’m not fat just because I have a large bust line.
When I get to this point I get so upset that I’ve worked so hard but can’t find a dress that fits both my hips and bust and feel really defeated and depressed. No matter how much I lose I can’t be good enough to be “normal”.I feel like I can’t fix this without surgery.
Anyone else have this problem? What do you do? Do you just have dresses altered? How do I get over feeling like crap because of this?
Well I went dress shopping today and I could wear a size 12 on top easy in several designers. I guess they are giving a little more room for the boobs than the measurement. And I’ve lost a few more pounds since I shopped last time. I could also wear a size 8 jeans. I’m 6 pounds away from my goal weight. Woo hoo!
I’m glad the sizes are bigger now. As a tall girl with larger build I can actually wear normal clothes. In the 80s size 13 was as big as they came and I had to be at a normal BMI to wear it. I couldn’t be 10 or 20 lbs overweight and find clothes. I wasn’t large enough to wear woman’s sizes and even if I could no one sold them.1 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.
I agree with you about how patterns are cut. It is interesting, though, how differently we define "hourglass." Since I have a 7" difference between bust/waist and waist/hips, a 10" difference seems huge to me! My hips are 35" so if I want low-rise jeans to fit, I have to buy a 24-25 (even though my actual waist measurement is 28"). And people wonder why shopping is such a traumatic experience for women...
In my late teens and 20s my measurements were 36, 24/25, 36, which was a typical measurement back then (80s) for young women, which is 10-12 inch difference between waist/bust, and waist hips.
I was 34-27-34, which was also pretty typical. I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I don't think basic body shapes have changed since we were younger. You were an hourglass and I was a ruler. Still am.
I was just responding to the other post that said that she had a difficult time buying clothes these days because the ratios had changed. I can't say if that's the case because I'm no longer that measurement, but in my early adulthood (1980s/90s) I never had any issues with clothes not fitting even with the 10-12 inch waist to bust/hips difference. Things are never standard across the board since different designers and stores do things differently so it doesn't mean much.
I actually DO think basic body shapes have changed though and not just sizes in proportion. This is why the VANITY sizing exists in the first place. Women are BIGGER than they were back then and rather than everyone wearing a size 18 or 20, the numbers keep getting smaller.
People make it sound like there's been a huge change. Isnt the average size a 14 at 5'4" and 167 lbs? People are like 25 lbs fatter than in the 60 s but there is also more variety of people living in the states. Considering how prevalent food is now 25 lbs isn't much. I mean that's like at most 2 sizes different in clothing. Healthy BMI ranges were actually lowered during the 90s so many people became overweight overnight. That contributes to more people being considered overweight. The average woman would almost be a normal bmi prior to the changes. Are people really that concerned that they may wear a 6 as opposed to an 8 or 10?
Obviously many women are, otherwise vanity sizing wouldn't be a "thing." What would be the point in changing the sizing if women weren't concerned about it? It's marketing but somebody in the companies I guess, decided they would try to capitalize on women's insecurities about their bodies, and change their sizing. Now everyone knows it means nothing (well some DO still care), but can you imagine the first company that did that? Women go into X store and normally they wore a size 14 and then at THIS store they fit into a size 10 or an 8?
I had kept a couple of my outfits that I wore in my early twenties (1980s), and they were considerably smaller than what was selling as the "same size" decades after. My mom actually showed me some size 12 and 14 denim shorts from that period, last month. She found them and I had to just laugh because they were in good condition but small, and I said "just give those away". I have size 14 clothes from "now" and they looked at least double the size of those shorts. When I wore a size 14 back then I was about 130 lbs.
I've 52--don't know how old you are, but I do see a considerable change on the "average." I grew up in a diverse area so it really isn't in my case, about seeing a different variety of people. 25 lbs. is a lot on a short person, and not to get too off this fluffy topic of vanity sizing, there is a problem with childhood obesity. 25 extra lbs. on a child would be very problematic.3 -
I like the style of 90s clothes, and I wear a much different size in vintage clothes than I do new clothes. Just bought a 90s size 12 that's tight on me, but my newer skirts are 6-8 and fit fine. I couldn't squeeze in a vintage size 8 if my life depended on it.0
-
I sell vintage wholesale jewellery and accessories on the odd weekend for a family I know. I was doing that today. We're talking 60s and earlier. We had a good chuckle about 90s being in fashion and considered vintage. And I personally would like mom jeans to stop being a thing. I am not a fan. I shouldn't have worn them in the 90s and I sure as hell won't be wearing them now!9
-
People make it sound like there's been a huge change. Isnt the average size a 14 at 5'4" and 167 lbs? People are like 25 lbs fatter than in the 60 s but there is also more variety of people living in the states. Considering how prevalent food is now 25 lbs isn't much. I mean that's like at most 2 sizes different in clothing. Healthy BMI ranges were actually lowered during the 90s so many people became overweight overnight. That contributes to more people being considered overweight. The average woman would almost be a normal bmi prior to the changes. Are people really that concerned that they may wear a 6 as opposed to an 8 or 10?
It is undoubtedly a huge shift. An overall increase of 25 lb. in a few decades is actually quite significant. If you think about it, it's actually statistically "abnormal" to be a healthy weight nowadays.
It might be "average" size for American women but that's only because the average American (70% at last count?) is overweight or obese. 5'4" and 167 lbs. is a BMI of 29--that's nearly in the obese range.
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I sell vintage wholesale jewellery and accessories on the odd weekend for a family I know. I was doing that today. We're talking 60s and earlier. We had a good chuckle about 90s being in fashion and considered vintage. And I personally would like mom jeans to stop being a thing. I am not a fan. I shouldn't have worn them in the 90s and I sure as hell won't be wearing them now!
I want to like this 8,000x. I'm in shock that young girls are wearing "mom" jeans today. I keep swearing that I won't do it, but I'm a bit of a fashion *kitten*. So...0 -
Personally, I dislike vanity sizing because it is assuming that every women is built with curves. It's getting increasingly difficult for me to buy work clothes because of how they are made. I'm built like a teenage boy who plays football (no boobs, no hips, but a perky butt and wide shoulders). I'm also 5 foot 9 and I need a 36 inch inseam. But, I wear a size 25 in jeans.
Most tops and blouses have too much room in the boob area. And most bottoms are built with too much room in the hip area.1 -
youngmomtaz wrote: »I hate vanity sizing! I am a solid size 10, sometimes a 12 for comfort. Some shops have clothing in a small that is fitting me well or actually too big. I have jeans and dresses in a size 6. My question is what do the “small” people wear if an x-small toop will fit me?
I do not care what the tag on my clothing says. I just want it to look nice.
We just find it hard to get clothes that fit!0 -
mom23mangos wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »In 2011 I was the same weight I am now. I was a happy 6. Then live gets in the way, I gained 20lbs, and in August I decided to get it off again. So now I'm sitting right where I was in 2011 and I bought a size 4 tall Skinny Jeans from Old Navy and they are too big. They don't carry 2's. With a 28" waist and 39" hips, I shouldn't need a 2.
So, yeah, it's there. Some stores are worse that others. Which basically means you just have to try everything on. And not go by your pants size.
Yes I went to a store and the jeans were sized s,m,l etc. and I had to get a small. I'm still overweight. 29" waist and 38" hips. What size are people 20lbs lighter than me?! LOL xxxsmall man oh man
Like someone else mentioned, they go to the kids section. Vanity sizing hasn't really touched kids sizes yet I don't think. And a size 12 in girls is roughly what a size 1 used to be in women's/juniors. And they are shorter, so it works well for petites. I'm not sure what the really tall thin people do.
That doesn't always work though because children's clothing doesn't cater for my 'good child baring hips.'0 -
Vanity sizing is real. In the 90’s I was a size 4 or 6 in pants & skirts, an 8 in dresses. In the 90’s the smallest size was a 2. Now with the triple zero, double zero and zero sizes all the other sizes have gone up. Today I am 17lbs heavier, have had 3 children, and wear a size 2 pant/jean in most mall stores, but have a 29inch waist. I wear an 8 in dresses & tops with 36 inch bust. H&M’s size chart is true to 90’s measurements so I wear one size bigger there. I’m a big online shopper so I’ve learned to shop for bottoms by my hip measurement (36) and tops & dresses by my bust measurement. Saves a lot of time & frustration. I agree with the OP about the stretch in jeans. It’s definitely changed everyone’s size.
I'm 37-29-37 and there is no way I could fit into a size 2 anywhere. Edit: or even a 4
What stores are you shopping at?1 -
Vanity sizing is real. In the 90’s I was a size 4 or 6 in pants & skirts, an 8 in dresses. In the 90’s the smallest size was a 2. Now with the triple zero, double zero and zero sizes all the other sizes have gone up. Today I am 17lbs heavier, have had 3 children, and wear a size 2 pant/jean in most mall stores, but have a 29inch waist. I wear an 8 in dresses & tops with 36 inch bust. H&M’s size chart is true to 90’s measurements so I wear one size bigger there. I’m a big online shopper so I’ve learned to shop for bottoms by my hip measurement (36) and tops & dresses by my bust measurement. Saves a lot of time & frustration. I agree with the OP about the stretch in jeans. It’s definitely changed everyone’s size.
I'm 37-29-37 and there is no way I could fit into a size 2 anywhere. Edit: or even a 4
What stores are you shopping at?
JCrew, JCrew Factory, Abercrombie are where I buy my bottoms. You would be a size 4 at those stores with a 37 hip. I have no idea why jeans are sold by waist size because the waist size at least on my body never correlates to what actually fits. Also, I’m super lean in my legs but I do have a booty so it’s not like it’s MIA or anything. I actually bought size 4 in high waist jeans because I thought 2 wouldn’t fit and they are roomy. :-/
I guess there goes my theory to shop by hip size for bottoms since you say you can’t fit in a 4. And when my hips were 37 I wore size 4. How strange.
What size pants do you wear?1 -
Vanity sizing is real. In the 90’s I was a size 4 or 6 in pants & skirts, an 8 in dresses. In the 90’s the smallest size was a 2. Now with the triple zero, double zero and zero sizes all the other sizes have gone up. Today I am 17lbs heavier, have had 3 children, and wear a size 2 pant/jean in most mall stores, but have a 29inch waist. I wear an 8 in dresses & tops with 36 inch bust. H&M’s size chart is true to 90’s measurements so I wear one size bigger there. I’m a big online shopper so I’ve learned to shop for bottoms by my hip measurement (36) and tops & dresses by my bust measurement. Saves a lot of time & frustration. I agree with the OP about the stretch in jeans. It’s definitely changed everyone’s size.
I'm 37-29-37 and there is no way I could fit into a size 2 anywhere. Edit: or even a 4
What stores are you shopping at?
JCrew, JCrew Factory, Abercrombie are where I buy my bottoms. You would be a size 4 at those stores with a 37 hip. I have no idea why jeans are sold by waist size because the waist size at least on my body never correlates to what actually fits. Also, I’m super lean in my legs but I do have a booty so it’s not like it’s MIA or anything. I actually bought size 4 in high waist jeans because I thought 2 wouldn’t fit and they are roomy. :-/
I guess there goes my theory to shop by hip size for bottoms since you say you can’t fit in a 4. And when my hips were 37 I wore size 4. How strange.
What size pants do you wear?
I wear a size 6/7. I think it may have to do with my hips being smaller than my lower abdomen area tho and where I like to wear my jeans. I have to make sure all my loose skin is under control lol
A 6/7 does fit my legs nicely tho and that has always been a problem. If I found jeans that fit my waist, they'd be too big for my legs and vice versa.1 -
Personally, I dislike vanity sizing because it is assuming that every women is built with curves. It's getting increasingly difficult for me to buy work clothes because of how they are made. I'm built like a teenage boy who plays football (no boobs, no hips, but a perky butt and wide shoulders). I'm also 5 foot 9 and I need a 36 inch inseam. But, I wear a size 25 in jeans.
Most tops and blouses have too much room in the boob area. And most bottoms are built with too much room in the hip area.
That's not vanity sizing. Modern clothing is made with smaller hip to waist and waist to bust ratios. Under 10" typically. Prior there was a larger difference, over 10". So actually clothing will probably fit you better now than it would have in the past. Just you get to wear a smaller label size.
It does also matter where you shop. Stores with a younger demographic will be cut with a narrower hip generally (I have some get grubby jeans from Primark for work and I have acres of room in the waist just to get the hip even vaguely fitting) and those aimed at an older demographic will be slightly curvier but also suffer more on the vanity sizing. There will come a point I won't be able to buy supermarket clothing I think as I'm heading to be in their smallest size but I'm not that small!0 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »
My sister is 5'4" and about that weight and i think she's a 4. Stores really are sizes differently and people are shaped differently. Maybe you should try another store? Even for big women some can wear a 12\14 at over 200 lbs where others are an 18.gradchica27 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »I always assumed (just an assumption, no supporting data) that the higher the averge weight of a store's audience is, the worse thwir vanity sizing would be?
I always thought the same. I’m a 2 in Ann Taylor Loft, but a 0 (sometimes a zero is too big, hah) in Ann Taylor, which is for slightly older women than Loft (so probably a bit bigger). Other stores targeted to 30s-40s women (J Jill, Talbots) are sometimes entirely too large for me (although maybe they’ve added smaller sizes since I last tried them on about 7-10 years ago). I’m 5’4”, 127-133lbs, 33-26-34. I shouldn’t be too small for a small, and I’m definitely not a 0.
It seems that the stores around me that have clothes appropriate to my age (I’m a 36 yo mom of 4, I’m just not going to wear what’s in style for teenagers, I’d feel ridiculous) are hit by the vanity sizing bug. At least sometimes—which makes it even more maddening. I just tried on a perfectly body hugging yet classy dress at White House Black Market in a 2. Gorgeous. Similar style dress in a different, dressier fabric, thought it could be a 1/2 inch tighter in the waist to really work. It was a 0. I mean, I lift a lot, so my 130ish lbs looks different than it did as a 130lb 5k runner, but still. A 0 shouldn’t be too big.
Juniors clothes tend to be a bit too tight in the hip and the chest, but that is probably due to the lifting, since I’m generously an A. I could wear juniors bras, but the bands are too narrow and the straps too short—I’m a smallish adult woman with a different shape than a largish teen. (I wore a 14/16 as a jr high student at the same height as now—but very different shape.Personally, I dislike vanity sizing because it is assuming that every women is built with curves. It's getting increasingly difficult for me to buy work clothes because of how they are made. I'm built like a teenage boy who plays football (no boobs, no hips, but a perky butt and wide shoulders). I'm also 5 foot 9 and I need a 36 inch inseam. But, I wear a size 25 in jeans.
Most tops and blouses have too much room in the boob area. And most bottoms are built with too much room in the hip area.
I sympathize. My only saving grace is that I’m short. A 2 generally has the right amount of bust give (read: almost none), but I’ve tried on dresses that fit perfectly on my boyish frame, but we’re (apparently) meant as mini dresses on taller women (so it seems they assumed my frame shoulder to hip but just with an extra foot or so of leg).
I see some super toned tiny ladies working on their booty gains at the gym (and rockin those leggings!), but I really want to know where they shop for jeans!Lillymoo01 wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »In 2011 I was the same weight I am now. I was a happy 6. Then live gets in the way, I gained 20lbs, and in August I decided to get it off again. So now I'm sitting right where I was in 2011 and I bought a size 4 tall Skinny Jeans from Old Navy and they are too big. They don't carry 2's. With a 28" waist and 39" hips, I shouldn't need a 2.
So, yeah, it's there. Some stores are worse that others. Which basically means you just have to try everything on. And not go by your pants size.
Yes I went to a store and the jeans were sized s,m,l etc. and I had to get a small. I'm still overweight. 29" waist and 38" hips. What size are people 20lbs lighter than me?! LOL xxxsmall man oh man
Like someone else mentioned, they go to the kids section. Vanity sizing hasn't really touched kids sizes yet I don't think. And a size 12 in girls is roughly what a size 1 used to be in women's/juniors. And they are shorter, so it works well for petites. I'm not sure what the really tall thin people do.
That doesn't always work though because children's clothing doesn't cater for my 'good child baring hips.'
Yep, my bigger age 13 self (same height) could fit the 14/16. My current self would find the waist roomy and hips and bust tight.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions