Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1179180182184185358

Replies

  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Wait. I thought this was all about US sizing, so I thought I'd stay out of the discussion. But if we're not... Size 12 means a 34.5 inch waist? Which country's sizes, @SezxyStef?

    Sizing differs from store to store. Some call this vanity sizing. I call it stores making clothes big enough to sell, but that is another thread. High street stores publish individual size guides, to tell the public the dimensions they design their garments to fit.

    In the UK:

    1) River Island. Size 12 jeans and trousers are listed as 29 inch/73cm waists. Pay attention to the centimetre measurement! https://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/size-guides/womens#extrasizeguide-womens-trousers

    2) Next- 29 inches or 74cm. http://help.next.co.uk/Section.aspx?ItemId=31028

    3) the White Stuff- it's 29 inches or 73cm .http://www.whitestuff.com/mobile/mobile-help-her-size/

    4) Marks & Spencer- it's 29.5 inches or 75cm. http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?mcptredirect

    5) Monsoon- it's 28.5 inches or 73 cm http://uk.monsoon.co.uk/view/content/size-guide

    This is the chart of US Standard sizing for adult women:

    uayh9p8vqtog.jpg

    This is the size chart from the back of a McCalls Pattern. The pattern companies are required to use standard sizing.

    8fr6l78psvx4.jpg

    That's interesting. According to the chart I'm a tight size 20 by hip and a size 18 by waist, but most of my current well fitting clothes are a size 14.

    And THAT is where vanity sizing comes in. These standards were set using the measurements of American women compiled in the 1940's and 50's. Pattern companies are required to follow this, clothing manufacturers are not.

    I would've said that "vanity sizing" is the gradual evolution of any given set of measurements to correlate to a smaller size number, pretty much across the range of stores and manufacturers, over several decades.

    That it's common for individual women to have a waist that nominally (or actually) fits one size, hips another, bust possibly a third, and maybe even shoulders a fourth? That's been a 'feature' of numbered sizing standards forever.

    Why do we tolerate this? Men get waist/inseam measures, we get an abstract number, with some mostly-unhelpful complication of "short" to "long", "petite" to "tall", and "juniors"/"misses"/"women's"(in the US). I'm guessing women spend more money on clothes; why do we get worse standards?.

    It's a good trend that different brands now deviate from the standards' proportions, so that more women have a hope of finding something, somewhere that fits. It would be nice if it were a little more transparent.

    What always bugs me about the difference in women's and men's clothing is that men's clothing is made to be altered and alterations are much cheaper, if not included in the purchase price. Their pants have extra seam allowance in the places where they might need to be let out, same thing with jackets across the shoulders. Pants and sleeves are designed to have the length altered easily. Women's clothes have none of this. Women are expected to conform to a specific size and shape and nobody cares about you if you don't fit it. Men can be all kinds of different sizes and shapes. Alterations are much more difficult and expensive for women.

    This is why I sew, and have for 40 years. I have broad shoulders and long arms and legs but a short torso. Women's clothing does not fit me comfortably.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,887 Member
    My unpopular opinion:

    When it comes to any weight training, unless it's at Olympic qualify form, it doesn't count. Especially with squats, not to full depth, not a squat. I know a lot of people that will argue that anything past parallel is a squat, I just won't count that for me.

    Making sure form is perfect is a whole lot more important than any weight on the bar to me.
    Because of human mechanics, form can't be perfect if the loads are at maximum. So if we're talking Olympic form, many wouldn't hold records if they didn't stumble a bit on a clean and jerk or a squat with a slightly more forward lean than usual. So would should those records be discounted because of a small break in form?
    I get what you're saying, but you shouldn't use the term "Olympic qualifying form" when the actual form breaks and the lift still counts. You should say "form that you see fit" doesn't count. Then it's subjective and applies to the actual thread.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

This discussion has been closed.