13 ms·

Sizing chaos

• polytely 8mo ago
  Very cool visualization, worked great on firefox mobile too which isn't always the case with these types of things.
• ChadNauseam 8mo ago
  Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • malfist 8mo ago
    Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear, mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor intensive.
    • dylan604 8mo ago
      I've had some athletic wear with "seamless" features, but after sometime the adhesive lets go. Fixing that at home is much more difficult than needle/thread fixes for normal stitches. To be honest, I never even realized it was "seamless" until the adhesive failed. It had no factor in my purchasing.
    • ChadNauseam 8mo ago
      why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape? I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?
      • munificent 8mo ago
        > why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape? Woven fabrics are naturally rectangular because they're made of a 2D grid of fibers at 90° angles to each other. The easiest (cheapest) way to make an irregular shape out of a woven fabric is to make a rectangle and cut it down. > I can knit clothes seamlessly, right? Knit garments usually have some amount of seaming, but yes, you have a lot of options to make irregular shapes when knitting. However, knitting machines tend be most efficient and making rectangular fabric. They can do some amount of shaping, but the labor and cost goes up. If you want to hand knit a garment, you can make quite complex irregular shapes with very little or no need for seaming. However, you're talking about two orders of magnitude more labor to make a garment. Few people want to pay $1,000 for a hand-knit sweater, so you're mostly limited to knitting it yourself or having a friend or loved one who likes you.
      • panic 8mo ago
        They can be! The key phrase to search for is “tubular weaving”.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    You can manage a seamless clothing product if you are willing to have it knit on-demand for you, either by machine or by person. If you start with how [1] socks are made, then consider how to decompose your clothes into sock-shapes, you'll find: Shirts: one tube sock for the torso, two tube socks for the arms, zero ends closed; Pants: two tube socks for the legs, one tube sock for the torso, zero ends closed; Gloves: five tube socks for the appendages, one tube sock for the palm, zero-to-five ends closed depending on fingerless style; Socks: one tube sock with one end closed; Hats: one tube sock with one end closed. So it's entirely possible to construct a sock weaving pattern that ends up weaving a head-to-toe single garment for you out of some kind of stretchy yarn, that you would then have to figure out how to clamber into through the face hole (since that's the only open-ended sock) — but that coverall (literally!) pattern would have to be constructed for your complete set of measurements [2] in every regard, and that's an exceedingly costly amount of labor (measurement, knitting, measurement, unraveling, repeat). You can scale down that cost for seamless tops or bottoms somewhat, which you'll absolutely see high-fashion retailers do, but at the end of the day it's the cost of bespoke-tailored clothing from scratch plus the cost of bespoke-knit fabric from scratch plus the cost of not getting it exactly right the first time. None of this is intended to criticize your desire — I hate awful seams and I have collected clothing that has seams that don't bother me and/or are extravagantly seams because the sweater was intentionally panel-knit inside-out! — but I wanted to offer a bit of depth into why it's difficult to find seamless. You have to start and end the knit somewhere, and that's exponentially simpler if you start and end the knit more than once; thus, seams. [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_7Limzg3O60 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_7Limzg3O60 or https://blog.tincanknits.com/2013/10/03/socks/ https://blog.tincanknits.com/2013/10/03/socks/ [2] https://cwandt.com/products/personal-body-unit-index https://cwandt.com/products/personal-body-unit-index makes the point nicely enough, though I believe you need Even More And Different measurements for tailoring [3] that were out of scope for this particular creation: > Che-Wei’s Mom often does this weird finger walking dance along the edges of furniture, fabric or random stuff. She knows that the span of her hand from thumb to pinky measures 18cm. So she can quickly size things up. We always thought this was funny, until we realized it was GENIUS and started to copy her. We made Personal Body Unit Index so we can be more like Che-Wei’s Mom. [3] Men's tailoring measurements are generally optimized for a couple dozen taken at most; further variability gets handled through 'adjustments' or 'on the fly' rather than formally at the construction stage. I think I can identify a couple dozen measurements just on my torso alone — just the bust is an entire three-dimensional construct that has to be measured over, across, under, rise, attachment shape, attachment height and width, volume, not to mention desired support/lift/shaping, and that's before we even get to the usual waist-hips-butt conglomerate, torso/arm length, shoulder width, upper/lower arm width that men are familiar with, and the perhaps less-familiar belly shape/distribution (it isn't always above-the-belt as is typical for men) and front abdomen curve shape (often without a certain male sexual characteristic, often with varying fat pattern distributions, see also belly).
  • cyberrock 8mo ago
    For t-shirts you're looking for loopwheel or tubular knit.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• 4gotunameagain 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  • i80and 8mo ago
    ah yes, clothes not fitting, a famously bourgeoisie problem /s As somebody with an atypical body shape, not being able to find things that fit is an endless source of irritation and discomfort
  • shikshake 8mo ago
    I’d argue this problem is more important than most of the tech articles on this site. Having well-fitted clothing is a massive quality of life improvement.
  • dang 8mo ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we've already asked you repeatedly to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681833 (Oct 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728916 (July 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287383 (June 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36346650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36346650 (June 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29857405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29857405 (Jan 2022) I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we're going to end up doing that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
• zeckalpha 8mo ago
  Almost like we should use, you know, units of length, when measuring lengths/widths/etc.
  • sien 8mo ago
    Yeah. It's a remarkable problem. There is a clear solution that is happily used for men. You tell people what to measure then have the clothes sized for the various dimensions. Charles Tyrwhitt have this guide where they tell you what to measure for shirts : https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/size-guides/szg-formal-shirts-1-2021.html https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/size-guides/szg-formal-sh... and for trousers : https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/szg-trousers-4-2021.html https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/szg-trousers-4-2021.html Presumably some online shops for women have something similar?
  • bhk 8mo ago
    Funny enough, vanity sizing strikes there too. The purported waist size of a pair of Levi's is off by almost three inches. One might argue that the size on their label is not supposed to indicate the size of the garment waistband, but the waist size of the wearer who would find it comfortable, but even with that interpretation it doesn't work out right.
• observationist 8mo ago
  Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative marketing? And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right? edit: Really should have used the /s, I guess - women's clothing has some appalling aspects to it, one of which is notoriously tiny pockets, which is a source of frustration for many women. For some, it even comes as a shock when they find out men can do things like put phones in their pockets. The emotional manipulation surrounding many women's products is a different beast entirely from what men experience, generally.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    I think the only error here was in thinking that’s a sarcastic explanation. Look up the history of the word ‘negging’ and consider the male-dominant business and marketing industries over the past few decades. Your sarcasm is, no joke, a valid explanation for what’s happening. I can’t assess whether it’s the most likely or how much impact it has, but you’re completely right to call it out as a possible motivation, and if you simply put quote marks around it, that would be plausible rather than sarcastic. Especially given that pockets were taken away from women’s clothing over their objections for similarly disgusting reasons. Here’s highlight from the below article from 10.2979/vic.2010.52.4.561 (2010) as an upsetting example: > Victorian women were told that they “had four external bulges already — two breasts and two hips — and a money pocket inside their dress would make an ungainly fifth.” https://fashionmagazine.com/style/womens-pockets/ https://fashionmagazine.com/style/womens-pockets/ (which cites that among many others) is a good survey of the historical and current pockets issues for those not yet familiar.
  • tirant 8mo ago
    And despite all of that, women keep buying those products. I have difficulties believing that your observations are a real issue. If they were, rest assured the free market would have found out about it and would have offered the right product for those women. Reality is that most women buy based on looks and not practicality. I really had not heard before your comment any women complaining about small pockets.
• ToucanLoucan 8mo ago
  Can confirm the utter hell it is to shop for women's clothing. I started transitioning at the ripe old age of 36, and up until that point, have obviously bought clothes for men. My entire fucking life I have bought XL shirts and jeans with a 38-44 inch waist, shorter legs. Never had an issue. Womens sizes... like Jesus Christ, I don't know how ANY women tolerate this shit. It's completely made up. A size 0 in one brand feels similar to a size 3 in another, feels similar to Large in another, feels similar to -1 in another. Anything you buy and like, you effectively have to pray they keep making forever, and always buy from that brand or you risk getting something else that doesn't fit correctly. I've never shopped a product category that feels so utterly hostile to consumer comprehension, except MAYBE microtransactions in videogames. And I'm not meaning to be dramatic, that's the only other type of market I've experienced in life where it feels like my attempts to understand what I'm buying are being deliberately frustrated like this.
  • observationist 8mo ago
    It's intentional, to force you to engage a salesperson, and that salesperson knows all the jargon and unnecessary variations and how to size clothing that fits you. Once you have a positive transaction like that, it gives the company the opportunity to get a very loyal customer out of you, and it's the more pricey and "exclusive" brands. 100% emotional manipulation - they piss you off on purpose so they can seem like a hero and set you up with clothing that feels and looks good, but the specific fit will only match their numbers, and maybe even only their numbers for that season. How about ensuring that you can match someone who wears XL with an L right after holiday season, or hit them with an XL in the fall to set them up for a change during the holidays, etc. The schemes are ruthless and never end, and it's all arbitrary fashion. In some ways, it's a lot easier being a guy.
    • deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    • ToucanLoucan 8mo ago
      I mean shit, I'd happily engage with salespeople if I wasn't terrified of my red-state-living self getting hatecrimed if I go to the wrong store.
• 0xbadcafebee 8mo ago
  > I took stacks upon stacks of jeans with me to the dressing room, searching in vain for that one pair that fit perfectly. Over 20 years later, my hunt for the ideal pair of jeans continues. But now as an adult, I’m stuck with the countless ways that women’s apparel is not made for the average person, like me. I'm a 5'6 145lbs adult male. Y'know how many clothes are made that fit me? T-shirts, size S, fitted; and dress shirts by Express. That's basically it. Pants don't fit me because the legs aren't short enough, the crotch isn't long enough, and I don't have a butt/thighs. Basically no jacket fits me. Shoes? One of my feet is a different size than the other. I, too, have to try on literally every garment I see that sort-of-looks-like it might fit. I have tried hundreds of pairs of jeans, dress shirts, jackets. When I find one that fits, I buy two of them (or every one in a different color). And then I gain or lose weight... and the cycle repeats. I probably own 30 pairs of jeans, and a closet full of shirts that I almost never wear, but one day might want, and will never be able to find anywhere else. Human bodies are diverse. Standard sizes don't work. But you know what will give you the perfect fit? Tailoring. Buy something too big, take it to a neighborhood drycleaner & tailor, and have them alter it to fit you. It's that simple. If you're worried about not having "enough" clothes and want to save money, it's not hard to use a sewing machine (if I learned, you can). In retrospect, I should've used tailoring rather than constantly hunt for fitting clothes. But I suspect I hunt the racks for the same reason women do: the idea that, somewhere out there, there's a better item I don't have. I don't think there's a way to reform the fashion industry, as it produces what the market bears. You could also - and I know this is crazy, but bear with me - wear ill-fitting clothes. Your gender doesn't have to constantly strive to be attractive. We will be into you regardless. And if you're just trying to live up to your own gender's expectations... maybe it's not a great expectation.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    This post is about women’s sizing, not men’s sizing. I’d love to see a followup post by someone doing the same analysis for men’s sizing, though!
    • exmadscientist 8mo ago
      Women's sizing got bad first, and is worse today, but men's sizing is already moving fast down the same road. This crap affects all of us and awareness that we're all in the same boat is a good thing.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• NedF 8mo ago
  [dead]
• fishtoaster 8mo ago
  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 brands? This is, to be clear, a sincere question - not a veiled argument against OP or anything! It seems like there are probably some structural or psychological or market forces stopping that from happening and I'd love to understand them. Same with the "womens clothes have no pockets" thing!
  • pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
    same, I wonder why this is. Is it just that modelling / marketing is more effective with things as they presently are? It seems there is a market for better fitting clothes -- likely half (or more!) of clothes bought would make the end customer happier if the items just had a better fit. Why have financial incentives not achieved this?
  • zamadatix 8mo ago
    In the "THe VILLaIN aRC oF VANiTY SiZINg" section, vanity sizing is framed as marketing strategy which is successful because of the psychology around that - linking out to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740813000612 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10577... for more detail. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the most profitable marketing strategy is unrelated to aligning with what's optimal for the consumer.
    • apt-apt-apt-apt 8mo ago
      Translating the confusing science speak, basically: Appearance self-esteem takes a hit when they don't fit in a size. They take it out on the clothes: "I hate their stuff, they suck." They buy more of other stuff to compensate for the hit, whether non-sized accessories (I am pretty) or book/tech (I am smart even if I don't fit). People confident in their appearance are immune to the effect, and simply think it's sized wrong or runs small.
• jedberg 8mo ago
  Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over time. I think this is why stretchy materials are getting more and more popular. The women in my house use stretchy pants almost exclusively, because they are much more forgiving with body shape. As long as the waist fits, the rest will fit well enough.
  • TMWNN 8mo ago
    >Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over time. Relevant: TIL that while male rowers are classified as "lightweight" or "heavyweight", larger female rowers are called "openweight" instead of "heavyweight". <https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/32p2ka/til_that_while_male_rowers_are_classified_as/ https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/32p2ka/til_th...>
    • xxxx_xxxx 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      • cindyllm 8mo ago
        [dead]
      • panic 8mo ago
        To be clear, you’re advocating for women to lose the right to vote? The misogyny in this thread was disappointing already, but seeing this comment being voted up is maybe a sign I should not be on this website any more.
        • Dylan16807 8mo ago
          Voted up? If you mean the troll post didn't immediately fade with one downvote that might just be a matter of having two accounts.
• Waterluvian 8mo ago
  I might have missed this in the scroll format but is there any reason not to drop the qualitative size names and just use an actual dimension or two?
  • ipsum2 8mo ago
    Yeah it's weird that mens pants and womens bras have numerical sizing but other womens clothing doesn't.
    • sevenseacat 8mo ago
      A lot of women's clothing does have numerical sizing, depending on where you are in the world. The number still has no connection to any physical attribute of a woman and is totally arbitrary.
  • carabiner 8mo ago
    They can lie with those too: https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/8srelb/info_graphic_of_vanity_sizing_in_mens_pants_from/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/8srelb/info_graph...
  • jccooper 8mo ago
    There is a problem with the number of dimensions. Even a t-shirt is described best in neck, chest, waist, and you could add several parameters for sleeves and also for heights. Neither consumers nor manufacturers can really handle the combinatorial explosion, so you have to boil it down to one or maybe two dimensions. But the reason even that isn't done is mostly history and market expectations. There are clothing categories that sell in actual dimensions, and (aside from the terrible dimensional accuracy of clothing in general) it works fine. But those are all on the "men's" side, and it seems the industry believes women will not like buying based on actual numbers.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    Sizing accuracy would definitely be an improvement, but it would shine a spotlight on the core issue that clothing manufacturers are hiding from consumers: they only produce hourglass shaped clothing and ignore the vast majority of body types altogether. If everyone’s sizing was 48-38-48-15 (bust-waist-hip-crotch) rather than L/XL/2XL, at least it would be a lot simpler to write a search engine for it — but there has, in the past century’s history, been extreme hostility from U.S. women in finding that their bodies are changing shape as they age, and so retailers are forced to choose between a sharp drop in profits by telling the truth, or making it difficult to cross-shop between different retailers. As no regulations exist around this, they appear to uniformly choose the latter.
• Rendello 8mo ago
  Interesting visualizations, but I don't understand what the thesis is. To me, the conclusion says: 1. Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity, which is exclusionary. 2. Clothing size standards do not match diverse body types. 3. There is no sizing standard, and companies size however they want.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    0. All commercial premade adult women’s clothing is made exclusively for a small minority of women with hourglass body shapes. The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn’t realize as a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that clothing manufacturers exclusively market to hourglass body shape alone — which some might recognize better as “pinup model” proportions. As a non-hourglass along with the vast majority of other U.S. women, it’s quite the shock to discover that megacorps are targeting a fraction of the market (hourglass) rather than the largest segment (rectangle).
    • flumpcakes 8mo ago
      I think that must be fashion dependent though? I can think of plenty of women's clothes that are definitely not marketed for hourglass physiques.
      • bubblewand 8mo ago
        Yeah I've shopped for clothes enough for my wife to know that even with an hourglass shape, you're guaranteed to find lots of pieces that're like "OK none of these sizes will work on you". Her particular problem is a small waist paired with an hourglass. Plenty of "ruler"-shaped cuts out there on the small end of waist size, that won't work for her. I wouldn't be surprised if women of every body shape believe that clothes must be targeting some other shape, except the ones who luck into a sizing-region in which multiple body types have a lot of overlap.
      • altairprime 8mo ago
        I can think of three major markets right now: Rectangle (athletics-branch brands), Hourglass (most entire fashion brands), and what I believe is Spoon but could be another shape (e.g. Kardashian). If I want to buy something I see in Vanity Fair magazine, and it fits me, then I will be buying: - Rectangle: athleticwear or athletics-adjacent, OR ‘petite’ sizes only - Spoon: bodycon stretch, primarily - Hourglass: 95% of the page surface area of the magazine Other magazines vary this formula, but VF is representing the same three body type divisions that are endemic in U.S. clothing. I think the article fails somewhat in this regard, but I honestly don’t consider it a flaw; they make a solid point and the limited niche exceptions are explicitly ‘niche only’ in the industry in favor of hourglass. I’m pretty certain I can find one niche retailer for any given triplet of { measurements, body shape, aesthetic style } — and it’s the introduction of that third component that reveals the problem. For any given style, say plaid or paisley or bodycon or flowy or “any color that isn’t red, gray, black, or white”, given a set of measurements and a body shape, there may only be one retailer known nationwide to serve that market. Torrid and Long Tall Sally both thrive in their respective triplets’ niches, but if you want clothes that fit you and are styled differently than the one retailer offers, it’s tailoring or nothing. (Incidentally, there’s a severe labor shortage of tailors in the tailoring industry as all the skilled workers are aging out of the workforce, same as CPAs in the accounting industry, so good luck finding one at a reasonable price!)
• socalgal2 8mo ago
  This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to considered victims so lets make up something to whine about" A few concrete issues: (1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should relabel the clothing, all that would do is raise the price and effectively make poor people poorer. (2) they show people "Americans" get heavier - That might be reality but maybe being reminded you're wearing extra large is a good thing? Like you really are "overweight" and that's unhealthy. You can choose to ignore that but the rest of us aren't required re-label you as something you're not (3) They graph high-fashion like LV and show they don't have large sizes. So what? Ferrari doesn't make cheap cars. I'm not required to make product that suits you. If you don't like what I'm offering, pick some other company's products. I don't like donuts, I don't go to a donut store and demand they offer pizza. Nor do I go to jeans store and demand they carry suits. (4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue? Try the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's what I do because duh!, different people and companies follow different patterns. Some fit, some don't. If you want to fix any of these - feel free to start your own clothing brand. Clearly you believe the market isn't being served. If so, put your money where your mouth is rather than requiring others to risk theirs
  • WarmWash 8mo ago
    Its like the pockets complaints. Women desperately want pants with pockets, but pockets throw off the aesthetic, so they don't sell well.
    • iteria 8mo ago
      Is that actually true though? Because I remember distinctly as a teen somewhere in the 00s where pockets stopped being an option. I could not and still cannot buy them in regular stores. I have to go to speciality stores or order online to get pockets. A lot of women have become resigned, but I rarely know a woman who isn't very excited about pockets for every day wear. I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting. While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• imagetic 8mo ago
  It's cool to see pudding.cool making the front of HN regularly.
• uberman 8mo ago
  Great visualizations but you can't buy a shoe without knowing that a 10 in one brand is not a 10 in a second brand or that for example you need to size down when ordering Dr. Martens then there is no way to expect clothing to be more accurate than a shoe.
  • mcgrath_sh 8mo ago
    Sure, not every shoe brand is equal, but if I know I'm a 9, I can generally start there and find a shoe plus/minus a half size. I have yet to go into a store and wind up in a shoe that is 3 sizes larger than what I thought my size was. Or 3 sizes smaller. Or a size 8 in one shoe from a brand and a 10 different shoe. I can order Nike/Jordan brand shoes without trying them on and they fit. Have done it for years. I went to re-buy the "same" jeans ~8 months after my initial purchase and the size I was wearing didn't fit in the new jeans. Tried another pair with a different wash and was back to the original size. I have tried on jeans from the same brand with similar cuts and came away two sizes apart. I can swing several sizes as a starting point between some stores. I get it, not every jean is going to be identical, but it isn't a ridiculous ask to be able to have a size I can start at and be within a size of what I need.
    • altairprime 8mo ago
      Anecdotally, I discovered recently that I’m a full three sizes down in Vivobarefoot shoes versus normal shoes — but for a really interesting reason. It turns out that modern runner’s shoes actually are often shaped like a foot, rather than like a spatula, and so now that I don’t have to size up for my toebox width thanks to them creating shoes that are foot shaped in disregard to fashionable propriety, I now fit much better into a 3-sizes smaller shoe than I did into their older shoes at my prior size. Part of why retailers are afraid to change sizing is that lots of women install their clothing into their ego and brag about it socially. I don’t approve, but I recognize the extrinsic cultural circumstances* that pressure them to do so. It’s a a lot harder to brag about being a size 49-42-48–8-30 than it is to brag about being a 20UK. (The /22 in 20/22 UK, the common size these days, is silent, because size lying is normalized.) It would make more sense instead for them to choose an anchor measurement and a body type modifier; but that gets into the problems of having to annotate nine different body type letters onto a numeric size, not to mention having to design clothing that looks good on nine different body types, and having to hire models of nine different body types. The modeling industry is unprepared to staff that need, too! * The phrase “pinup-hourglass male-gaze body-shape imposed-ideal” serves as an excellent starting point for research on that nightmare. For those unfamiliar, ask your friends who are women about that exact phrase, and remember to listen rather than critique their potentially-lengthy reply. I’m focusing on the sizing discussion and leave that topic as an exercise for the reader.
• astura 8mo ago
  >By age 15, most girls have gone through growth spurts and puberty, and they’ve reached their adult height. >Many have started to outgrow the junior’s size section. Ummmmm.... What? I wore junior’s sizes well into my 30s. Am I really that much of an outlier?
  • flumpcakes 8mo ago
    Statistically, yes.
  • sevenseacat 8mo ago
    As someone who grew out of junior sizes by the age of 10, yes (so am I)
• cindyllm 8mo ago
  [dead]
• miav 8mo ago
  It is genuinely incredible how well-fitting clothing is only generally available to some one-third of women who fit well into the anticipated height-waist ratio. Petite options exist in some places, but god forbid you're tall - your choices will be limited to "too short" and "too short and also too wide" if you try to go for a size up.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    Skewing that further is the single length ratio of inseam to torso that a retailer's clothing is fit for. If you have short(er) legs and long(er) torso (than the median), you're doubly screwed, both in tops and bottoms; pants will flop past your feet and shirts won't reach your waist. The world is gradually starting to figure this out, but you typically only find 'tunic' (with its higher length-to-waist ratio) in a very few retailers at all.
  • frm88 8mo ago
    The same goes for shoes and if you're dedicated to minimalist shoes you're basically doomed to men's shoes. Shoe size for women is a joke and seeing that most apparel and shoes are made in Asia, the divergence to standard measurements or sizes is doubly apparent.
    • tirant 8mo ago
      Doesn’t help that high quality European made shoes are made either in Portugal, Spain or Italy, where women have also small feet. I believe there are still quite some shoe factories in Germany and Eastern Europe, but are mostly dedicated to Hiking and Mountanieering shoes
• ggm 8mo ago
  Regulate now. You would think it actually levels the playing field for everyone. Never got this, nor the bizarre dysfunctional pockets on womens clothes. In wartime/rationing, the government stipulated hem size, banned turn-ups, oxford bags, specified jacket lengths, cloth weights. For working class people, clothes IMPROVED. (de-mob (de-mobilisation) suits were for some working men the best suit of clothes they had ever owned)
  • frm88 8mo ago
    ... nor the bizarre dysfunctional pockets on womens clothes. That clearly has the function to sell purses and it works very well - even in this thread a commenter is writing (paraphrased): I'd rather wear something cute and use a purse... The accessory market in the U.S. is worth $ 798 billion so nobody is keen to subtract from that by sewing on functional pockets. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/fashion-accessories-market-report https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/fashion-...
• Animats 8mo ago
  You're not supposed to talk about this. Someone I used to know was fired from the New York Times for saying too much about it.[1][2] [1] https://fashionschooldaily.com/cintra-wilson-vs-jc-penney-the-fashion-throwdown-of-the-year/2753/ https://fashionschooldaily.com/cintra-wilson-vs-jc-penney-th... [2] https://archive.is/md8qw https://archive.is/md8qw
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
• magneticnorth 8mo ago
  "The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s." I assume they mean circumference rather than diameter, but this is still a shocking increase in only 30 years. I knew the obesity epidemic was an ever-increasing problem, but this really puts it into perspective. I wonder if we'll ever fully understand the causes behind this rapid shift.
  • steanne 8mo ago
    part of it is just raw obesity increase, but part is also an aging population. even if women today WERE the same size as women of the same age 30 years ago, the average over the total population would still be up.
    • magneticnorth 8mo ago
      Ah, yeah, the aging population is a good point. I can't find a citation now, but I recall reading at some point that weight gain with age (in adulthood) didn't used to happen very much before the obesity epidemic, though nowadays we take it as a given. I wish I could find a source for/against that idea, I'm curious now if it's true.
    • Legend2440 8mo ago
      Mostly though it's the obesity increase. 40% of Americans are obese, and 75% are overweight. 30 years ago only 20% were obese.
      • lloeki 8mo ago
        This is what I was beginning to think around the "nobody's actually hourglass" section. I thought it would be worth looking at what the definitions are: https://www.ergo-eg.com/uploads/books/devarajan_full_106_04%20(3).pdf https://www.ergo-eg.com/uploads/books/devarajan_full_106_04%... > Hourglass. A subject would fall into this shape category when there is a very small difference in the comparison of the circumferences of her bust and hips AND if the ratios of her bust-to-waist and hips-to-waist are about equal and significant (Simmons, 2002) > Rectangle. A rectangular subject would have her bust and hip measure fairly equal AND her bust-to-waist and hip-to-waist ratios low. She would not possess a clearly discernible waistline (Simmons, 2002) Over here (E.U) I'd say most women definitely would be "hourglass shaped" in some way more than any other shape - maybe some would be a tie with "rectangle" but I'm breaking the tie by saying it's fair to say hourglass does not mean wasp-waist either - so I couldn't reconcile my anecdotal observation from the stated facts until it dawned on me that this was U.S stats. > One 2007 study found that half of women (49%) in the U.S. were considered rectangle-shaped. Only 12% of women had a true hourglass figure. OK let's dig data: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_07_08/obesity_adult_07_08.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_07_08/obe... > Results from the 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 34.2% of U.S. adults aged 20 years and over are overweight, 33.8% are obese, and 5.7% are extremely obese. And apparently it's worse for women (35.5% obese) than men (32% obese). Anyway I'm not sure what "true hourglass" is supposed to even mean (wasp-waist?); according to the definition you got some waistline + balanced hip and shoulders => you're hourglass. If you start using "rectangle" as a fallback when in doubt then of course it's going to rate higher. Funnily enough the very study linked is a comparison with another country (Korea): https://www.emerald.com/ijcst/article-abstract/19/5/374/124961/Comparison-of-body-shape-between-USA-and-Korean https://www.emerald.com/ijcst/article-abstract/19/5/374/1249...
• Galaco 8mo ago
  At a previous employer this was a problem we identified (and larger retailer customers) had recognised, although for other reasons. We had developed a size recommendation system for them, that used real product measurements in every size and a method of obtaining your body measurements from fully clothed photos. We also offered a statistical average measurement set for those who couldn’t/wouldn’t take photos of themselves (privacy was important to us, and there was no need to undress). We were able to give details about fit comfort across many measurements for each size, but this feature was basically unused. 99% of users used the statistical average body of themselves instead of themselves, which actually exacerbates the body type problem. Another interesting thing about the industry and the grading process we learned; many retailers had no measurements for their own clothes except the reference size. This was much more common of higher end brands. 1 last thing; some global brands actually have the same size name on the same product represent a different size in different region (eg an SKU in size S in US may have different measurements to the same SKU in S in Asia)
  • crote 8mo ago
    There's also a surprising lack of consistency item-to-item. More than once I have grabbed two of the same pants (same model, same size label, next to each other on the rack) and one would fit well while the other was way too large or way too small.
    • Maxion 8mo ago
      This is a QA issue, the factory makes sizes to a pattern. But to be fast, they don't cut it out that accurately or sew it that accurately. So you end up with big variance from size to size. In order to get fast fashion made cheaply and quickly, corners are (left) uncut.
  • Anamon 8mo ago
    > 1 last thing; some global brands actually have the same size name on the same product represent a different size in different region (eg an SKU in size S in US may have different measurements to the same SKU in S in Asia) I (Swiss) once ordered a T-shirt from a U.S. brand, size M because that fits me perfectly 95% of the time. It was way too big for me. Lesson learned, the next time I liked a T-shirt form the same brand, I ordered the size S. It was way too tight, I couldn't even put it on. I checked the label, and it said: "European fit".
• choilive 8mo ago
  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 abstraction. You are trying to distill many variables into a single dimension. It will never be particularly great.
  • CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
    We do. For men it's brands like Proper Cloth and for women it's Eshakti or creators on Etsy
    • gbear605 8mo ago
      Bad news about Eshakti, the company shut down and didn’t deliver many outstanding orders.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    If sizes were updated to, say, 14Z, where Z is a common industry-wide body shape code, then it would be vastly simpler to find clothing that fits — and people who were a 22 before might now be a 16S, once the clothes are proportioned properly for their non-hourglass body. The problem underlying this is that retailers do not want to advertise for more than one body shape, because that not only reduces their total profit (9x the models hired, 9x the designs to create, more complicated size ranges than simply blowing up a size 6 design with a photocopier), it also would force everyone in the industry to be revealed all at once as cheaping out on design and production, once the use of H for hourglass spread (since anyone who isn’t using a letter code is obviously Hourglass Only, based on the data). Corporations have multiple strong financial incentives not to do this, and their shareholders would revolt and fire any CEO who tried to reduced profits by incurring massive increases in design cost, product variants, model staffing, and retail/online logistics for the sake of “unattractive” non-hourglass women. I think the EU’s “no more shredding clothes” initiative is going to have some very interesting ramifications over the next few years, as clothing manufacturers will have to choose between seeing people buy their unsold inventory at the local equivalent to Goodwill here in the U.S., or have to start selling clothing “made to order” with only a limited quantity kept in the store for try-on purposes. Apple, weirdly, already has a perfect logistics pipeline for exactly this approach; you can get an off-the-shelf option in stores, or you can customize it in eight to ten different ways and get something labeled “CTO” — Custom To Order. But that’s not a cheap logistics pipeline for a company that only has to set the copier inflation percentage based on your size choice today — the designs are for size 6 and then they blow it up by 140% for size 10 or whatever (yes, seriously, for real). So it may end up that once the clothing industry has to start making clothing on-demand, they will quickly expand into more options than the “print a ream of t-shirts and try to sell them in 3 months” profit-maxing approach that they’ve all coalesced into today.
• eszed 8mo ago
  Men's clothes have gone through the same process over the course of my lifetime. For instance, I wear the same brand and size of jeans that I did in college. The waist size back then was broadly accurate to the actual size in inches, but today, thirty years on, I weigh ~20lbs more, and that waist "measurement" has up-sized along with me. I guess it's meant to flatter me, but is it really fooling anyone? I guess, based on other's comments in this thread, that it does, and vanity sizing works, which is just sad. (Then there are men's "relaxed" fits, which bear even less relationship to actual measurements. Maybe "slim" sizing is closer to the old system? Even when they fit my waist - like, six nominal inches bigger than standard! I'm not that much wider - they don't fit my legs, so I don't know.) None of that's anywhere close to as ridiculous as women's sizing, but give 'em time and I'm sure it will be.
  • kccqzy 8mo ago
    The simplest brand to buy men’s clothes for me is Levi’s: their sizes correspond exactly to the waist circumference in inches. Example: https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/jeans-by-fit-number/men/jeans/501/501-original-fit-mens-jeans/p/005013793 https://www.levi.com/US/en_US/jeans-by-fit-number/men/jeans/... It’s basically the only brand where I can buy online without trying it on, and still be confident that it will fit as expected.
  • deathanatos 8mo ago
    I have a pair of men's jeans. If I lay them flat, while buttoned, and measure the width of the cloth with a cloth measure, I get 16.5", so roughly a 33" circumference. They're a 32"x34" size pair, … so that's basically spot on. Note that, at least AIUI, the measurement printed on the pair is the wearer's waist measurement, so we thus expect the measured circumference of the top of the jeans to be slightly wider, since men's jeans are not intended to sit at the waist.
    • bubblewand 8mo ago
      The outer measurement will also be larger than the inner. If your waist measures precisely 32", a 32" outer-measurement waistband (sans some stretch) will be too snug.
• mgaunard 8mo ago
  Sizing only sucks because diet and exercise habits changed since the sizes were introduced.
  • Legend2440 8mo ago
    But then why haven't the sizes been updated? We've been gaining weight slowly over decades, they've had time.
    • munificent 8mo ago
      We're all still collectively telling ourselves we'll get back in shape any day now.
• diath 8mo ago
  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 breakfast is not healthy. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
  • munificent 8mo ago
    > 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.
    • kccqzy 8mo ago
      That Starbucks probably saved my life after I made an unwise decision to bike 40 miles on an empty stomach. Bonking is real, and I’m glad they are allowed to sell the sugary beverages to prevent me from bonking. Oh and I also fainted the first time I donated blood, because I did not know I should not donate blood while fasting. Again, sugary drinks helped.
      • shimman 8mo ago
        You really can't discern between a healthy portion of sugar and an unhealthy portion of sugar? I can assure you it should be way less than what they are serving. Especially since society will bare these costs in a variety of unexpected ways, Starbucks needs to be compelled into doing so. They broke the societal compact, they have to be punished.
        • kccqzy 8mo ago
          I can discern it very well. And indeed I think for the people like me who can discern it, stores should be able to sell these sugary beverages. The same amount of sugar is unhealthy when I’m sedentary, but absolutely necessary in other cases.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• squidgyhead 8mo ago
  Here's an article from 2002 talking about how we could just have data-based sizing: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-death-of-small-medium-and-large-the.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/the-year-in-idea...
• deejaaymac 8mo ago
  As a male who has been on both ends of the spectrum (morbidly obese) and 'fit' / bodybuilder I find the whole discussion about size, clothing, weight, vanity, etc incredibly boring. Buy whatever clothes you're comfortable in and take steps to not be obese, and uninstall social media while you're at it. It really is that simple.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• shimman 8mo ago
  This is the first pudding article that does not feel as polished. Scrolling down the spacing between legends within the data visualizations are not good. Some text doesn't even appear (cut off from the top on the torso visualizations). My font size is increased by like 150% thru the OS but my zoom is still 100%. Good content tho.
• nahikoa 8mo ago
  As a short adult male (5'5" - 165cm), it's always been difficult to find pants or jeans with a 28" inseam. Surprisingly, AmazonBasics line of clothes is one of the few mass produced consumer brands that has this size. Niche alternatives like Peter Manning are expensive, so it's great Amazon does this.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    In theory, the claim in pants from retailers over time was that you could "just get them hemmed" — but if your jeans shape is bootcut or flare, then the leg curves sewn into the fabric will be in the wrong places for your knees, and/or you'll end up hemming off the flare. This gets especially frustrating in women's fashion because bell bottoms are popular, and there's no way to hem them without losing the 'bell' at the 'bottom' of the leg — but retailers only produce them in specific waist-inseam pairings, and so if you want to wear nice jeans with a nice flare, you have to get very lucky in finding them (especially if you're low-rise!) if they happen to exist at all.
  • Toutouxc 8mo ago
    I'm like 1 cm taller than you and the pain is real. And pants are still kind of doable, but mountain bikes? My enduro rig is size XS on 27.5 rims and with manufacturers dropping 27.5ers I expect this to be the last bike that feels anywhere close to "nimble". Also RIP women riders, but that's been the case for years now. I also have proportionally small feet (size 39 EU but wide as fuck, so I only wear expensive minimalist shoes with wide toe boxes) and small hands (RIP piano, I'm not hitting an octave ever).
• juggert2 8mo ago
  [flagged]
• harrall 8mo ago
  Women have it much worse but it’s the same with men’s clothes. A “large” men’s shirt from Uniqlo is totally different from a “large” from Volcom and so on. Start making your own clothes and realize there’a a thousand dimensions to a shirt and “waistline” is barely scratching the surface. Don’t get me started on shoes, especially if you have wide feet. Something like “wide” means totally different things. Unlike clothes, poorly fitting shoes will absolutely destroy you. At least pants have WxL. I’ve come to chalk up clothes sizing as a natural complexity of life.
  • slopinthebag 8mo ago
    and then you buy two different brands of pants of the same w/l and they fit completely differently /)_-)
    • laksjhdlka 8mo ago
      And you buy the same brand and model of pants from the same retailer and they still fit completely differently due to variation in the product. Pretty annoying, I just want to buy my Levi's 510s every couple years and get the same thing each time.
      • slopinthebag 8mo ago
        yeah I dont buy pants without trying them on now, and usually still need to get them tailored. buying oversized shirts is fine online tho because if you get them a bit wrong in either direction its fine.
• moralestapia 8mo ago
  Is this not the case with men?
  • crote 8mo ago
    To an extent, yes. However, men's clothing is generally rather shapeless, whereas women's clothing is usually quite figure-fitting. Women also have a lot more variety in body shape: breasts are a thing, for starters, and there's a wide variety in which areas fat is primarily stored. Is sizing an issue for men as well? Yeah, probably. But it is significantly worse for women.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• performative 8mo ago
  a good supplement for this is the Articles of Interest episode on plus size clothing: https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/plus-sizes https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/plus-sizes
• _alternator_ 8mo ago
  I just want to say that this is one of the best pieces of data journalism that I have ever seen.
  • johnhamlin 8mo ago
    I never check pudding.cool for some reason, but I always smash the link when I see one
• bfung 8mo ago
  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... <cue xkcd comic about standards>. Enjoyed the presentation of the site. :)
  • sevenseacat 8mo ago
    > * If you want a better fit, go physically to a store instead of shopping online and try them on. Cool. If you don't have an hourglass shape, none of them will fit you properly. They'll either be way out in the hips, or the thighs, or the waist, or the length (for pants), or the waist, the length, the shoulders, the bust, or the arms (for shirts), and don't get me started on shoes. What now?
• nn3 8mo ago
  What's also annoying is that sizes of the same clothes change. I have a pair of jeans that I ordered on Amazon in 2020. It happens to fit me great. So recently I decided to order two more of the same. I got exactly the same model with the same size on Amazon, just with different colors. But neither fit very well, they were far wider. The first one had such a horrible fit that I immediately sent it back. The other I can wear, but it's quite different from the other perfectly fitting one. Why are they doing that? It's insane.
• _main 8mo ago
  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
  • tpm 8mo ago
    > If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available. I'm a man often shopping for bike wear in Europe. I'm neither overweight or obese. The article is right that sizing is a complete mess: with my 180cm and 74kg I'm usually mass market size M in tops and L in pants because I just have a big ass (again I'm not fat, I still have a big ass when I'm 70kg during the height of the summer season). But it's often an S in tops. Anyway, in the bike brands sizing, the tops are mostly M to L. The bike pants? I have already sent back XXL's because I just couldn't put them on. But for some brands, I'm still L, for others it's XL. The measurements don't mean anything, they are completely off quite often. The only half-usable help is customer reviews where people note their measurements and the size that fit them. Also the sizing is not only inconsistent between brands, but also for different items of the same brand. One thing I don't really understand is the brands perspective. If someone with my measurements is forced to wear XL (and for long pants the legs are often too long as a result), what is left? Will a guy 185 cm high weighting 90kg, which is not uncommon, be forced to wear an XXXL (if they make this size, which they usually don't)? Do they look at this and think it's good sizing nomenclature?
    • wooger 8mo ago
      These clothing companies are based (if no longer producing) in different regional markets, so focussing on e.g. the average Italian cycling enthusiast, which will be quite different to the average Dutch, American etc. I've found myself not even considering brands where I've found inconsistent sizing, but going back again and again to ones I can reliably pick a size and know it'll fit, no returns.
      • tpm 8mo ago
        > so focussing on e.g. the average Italian cycling enthusiast, which will be quite different to the average Dutch, American etc. I have seen this explanation a lot and frankly I doubt that very much (The XXL I had to return was a Belgian brand). I think it's not the body size difference in regional market but rather the Italian market for example may be used to different size designations. But then they sell to other markets too, so they should sort this thing out. I simply can't buy anything from Castelli when the reviews say 'buy 2 or 3 sizes larger than the measurements say'. > but going back again and again to ones I can reliably pick a size and know it'll fit I wish those existed for my garments. Sizing is inconsistent between Assos Equipe RS and Mille GT lines, between newer and older Isadore pants, between newer and older Endura pants...
• mixmastamyk 8mo ago
  So these sizes (kid, teen, adult) are kind of ridiculous on their own, and combined with the different international systems even more. If you look at the tongue of a pair of a pair of sneakers for example, sometimes there will be four different numbers for international markets. I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind.
  • stackghost 8mo ago
    >I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind. Funny you should mention shoes, because this is exactly what european shoe sizes are. It's really just a case of, yet again, Americans stick with an ass-backwards system (inches/pounds/feet, fahrenheit, etc.) when the rest of the world has settled on something much more logical and reasonable.
    • mixmastamyk 8mo ago
      Not really, Wikipedia says it is 2/3 cm +/- 2. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
    • monsharen 8mo ago
      "European" shoes differ quite a lot between brands and even models in the same brand. A lot due to factories being slightly different and the materials used, but also in terms of how the shoe itself is designed. Size charts mostly only tell us one dimension (the length) of the shoe. If you're lucky you'll get width at one chosen point as well. Far from ideal.
  • bdangubic 8mo ago
    DJT would slap 86% tariff on any imported good only shown sizing in centimeters so this better be inches :)
• JadeNB 8mo ago
  The original title made clear that this was about sizing for women's clothes. I'm not sure why that was removed; it wasn't clickbaity, and made the title more informative. In fact, I'd argue that just "Sizing chaos" is more clickbaity. (The article itself doesn't seem to have an official title.)
  • dang 8mo ago
    The url includes "womens-sizing" but I don't see that phrase on the page when I view it. "Sizing chaos" is the HTML doc title which is a legit option HN titles (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22html%20doc%20title%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). That's why we went with that one.
    • altairprime 8mo ago
      For potentially interesting context, I notice in inspecting past articles that the pudding site regularly uses three different titles between the homepage, the article html title, and the title in-page (if any). In this article’s case, the homepage subtitle is much better than either of the other options: > The inter-generational struggle to find clothes that fit more than a tiny portion of women But I’m not sure if that’s a better title for HN or not. I sure like it, though.
• orbisvicis 8mo ago
  What a lovely website, and the torso silhouette sizing diagrams are invaluable. I'm not the target demographic, but the main problems I have are proportions not simply waistsize. I was under the impression a size range [xs,s,m,l,xl] was supposed to adjust girth (bust, waist, hip, thigh) while leaving the vertical measurements unchanged (inseam, rise). Because nothing fits, I purchase a sizing range with the intention to keep just one and return the rest. It makes for pretty funny discussions: $500 on <clothing> WTF! Anyway I've started measuring clothing dimensions and have found that the brands I shop generally tend to adjust other dimensions in a 2:1 girth:height ratio. This means that if I want a snug waistline I'll have a tight crotch or be forced to wear pants on or below the hip. Now I like wearing pants somewhere between waist and hip. There's a band of fat/padding/sinew (?) just above the hips that makes for the sweet spot in terms of comfort and utility. I don't understand clothing that's meant to sit on the hips... so uncomfortable. As a rule of thumb I tend to shop Asian clothing stores in the US because they tend to better fit my proportions, but lately it's become hit-or-miss, i.e uniqlo. I've also got some pretty weird proportions due to my exercise regimen. Also you've got to love brands that don't provide actual sizes. Wtf! Size ranges are almost always infuriating. I sample my measurements throughout the day to get an accurate range and average. This is invariably what occurs: store sizes: x1-x2, x3-x4, x5-x6 me: x2-x3 Infuriating! Non-contiguous ranges suck! Then there's this little unexplained morsel: > The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s. Their data is drawn from the US, so I'm wondering if this is related to the obesity epidemic, or a general change in silhouette. I was under the impression that historically, humans are trending taller and skinnier.
• Filip_portive 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
• Markoff 8mo ago
  for non-native speakers: tweenager - a child between the ages of about 10 and 14. (Oxford Languages) tweenager - a young person between the ages of approximately eight and twelve (Cambridge Dictionary) seems even dictionaries can't decide on the age Btw S M L sizes are retarded, why they can't just write normal size like 128 (cm), 134, 152 for cm of height as is commonly used in Europe, my wife regularly checks kid sizes since some teenagers are taller than her. Sadly for adults it's more complicated. I hate buying pants as adult male since it's complete mess, waist size in Europe in inches, length you never know from where it's actually measured, so if shopping online it's always lottery especially since I am relatively skinny and everything is made either for short or tall fatsos, so if I wanna normal length I end up with huge waist.
• galkk 8mo ago
  > Cultural narratives around vanity sizing often square the blame on female shoppers, not brands. Newsweek once called it “self-delusion on a mass scale” because women were more likely to buy items that were labeled as sizes smaller than reality. But there’s more to the story. > Vanity sizing provides a powerful marketing strategy for brands. Companies found that whenever women needed a size larger than expected, they were less likely to follow through on their purchases. Some could even develop negative associations with the brand and never shop there again. But when manufacturers manipulated sizing labels, leading to a more positive customer experience, brands could maintain a slight competitive edge. How one can seriously write the same thing twice in form of contradiction and make different conclusion?
  • mrkandel 8mo ago
    Well, the first description puts it as "self delusion", while the other describes it as a rather natural reaction and puts the initiative for the change on the brands.
    • galkk 8mo ago
      Old good tragedy of the commons.
• scotty79 8mo ago
  Is the distribution of women waistline sizes really bimodal at some ages? That can't be good.
• trippsydrippsy 8mo ago
  [dead]
• scotty79 8mo ago
  I hope with computers getting better at handling soft materials we could finally get fully automated tailor as a service. Mass production in clothing has so many pathologies that it needs to be replaced with something better and less wasteful asap.
• speedgoose 8mo ago
  If the author reads this, I think it would be great to use international units as an option, and perhaps by default. I have no idea about imperial units so it’s a difficult read.
• sbinnee 8mo ago
  I as a small male struggled a lot when I started exploring fashion. Nothing seemed fitting to my body. You know what happened? I just gave up at some point. I rarely buy new clothes now. I absolutely don’t buy anything before I try them on.
  • tirant 8mo ago
    You should have never bought anything before trying it on in the first place. I myself have a very standard body shape, to the point that almost always fit perfectly in all clothes. Nevertheless I always try them on, there’s never guaranteed that they will look nice on me.
    • sbinnee 8mo ago
      Haha. Yes, I learned that hard way. Anyway there are not many options for me to try offline. Many shops have been making extra small size only available online, which sucks.
• RobotToaster 8mo ago
  There's a European standard designed to fix this, which just uses body measurements, although I've never seen it used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_standard_for_size_labelling_of_clothes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_standard_for_si...
• Al-Khwarizmi 8mo ago
  I've always been struck by how outrageously exploitative and anti-consumer the textile industry is in so many ways, and how people just normalize it and don't even discuss it. Not just in sizing, which is also a problem — my polo shirt and dress shirt sizes vary between M and XXL depending on the brand, and even my shoe size can vary up to 3 numbers, it shouldn't be rocket science to establish some quantitative standards. There's also the issue of buying a polo shirt and having it bleed because they've decided to save a few cents on the color-blocking product, and in the first wash, it ruins not only the shirt itself but the entire laundry load. And the fact that a cotton garment may or may not shrink, and it's a complete lottery how much it will shrink, so sometimes even trying it on in person is useless. And then there's the fact that someone up there decides that this year a certain trend is "coming" (let's say, pants with buttons instead of zippers) and that's all they sell. If you like zippers and you need to buy pants that year, tough luck. And all of this is compounded by the fact that even buying expensive doesn't guarantee you'll get spared from all this nonsense... I'm not a cheapskate at all, I don't mind paying if I know a garment will be reliable and durable, but sometimes you buy a designer item and the quality is absolute garbage. All of this, by the way, is much worse in Europe than in the US (I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe it's because in the US you always use a dryer, so they have no choice but to make clothes a bit more robust for that market). If other industries did these things, consumers would be up in arms. If any other product seemed to behave well when you superficially check it on the store, but then completely failed on very first use (like a shirt that shrinks or bleeds), you would return it. But in clothing all of this is normalized. It also amuses me when people complain about the carbon footprint of AI: if they saw the footprint of the textile industry (compared to the actual usefulness of clothes designed to last for one season and be replaced...).
  • faeyanpiraat 8mo ago
    I wash new clothes by themselves for the first time for this reason, it's a good enough solution. I once had jeans with buttons and first I thought it was terrible, but after 2-3 uses I got used to it, so it's not a big deal I guess. And about quality there is a youtube channel where they cut shoes in half and rate the quality of the build, and based on the couple of shoes I've checked out, the price and brand rarely correlates with good quality. As with everything else, when buying expensive longterm items (like a leather boot), it is worth doing some research into which option is the best.
• seyz 8mo ago
  the real insight here isn't that sizing is broken. Everyone knows that. It's that fixing it would require brands to admit their current customers don't match the label they've been selling them. "You're not a size 6, but size 10" is bad for business
  • HappyPanacea 8mo ago
    So invent new names
• severak_cz 8mo ago
  Forget oil rig units. Clothes sizing is the true cursed unit system.
  • HappyPanacea 8mo ago
    Did you learn about them from this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdWEGzWFcCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdWEGzWFcCc this the only thing that seems to match oil rig units + cursed.
• arh5451 8mo ago
  Im interested to understand what is the reasoning for using the median and not average. I'm assuming the population is likely a perfect bell curve (more or less) in which case median would represent a higher waist size than using the average. This would seem to invalidate much of the presented thesis. I appreciate the detailed analysis of body shape, I think it is quite interesting.
• brailsafe 8mo ago
  Reminds me of how annoyed I am that Eddie Bower is closing, because there's very few other retailers that sell affordable medium-tall mens sizes with extra long arms. People who don't have anatomical size issues don't seem to understand how annoying it is to find clothing that doesn't fit some statistical average. I have to get lucky to find a medium that fits a bit thinner, but then usually I'm stuck if that company decides to change their product. If I need formal wear I need to find a niche company and pay niche prices. Feet larger than size 12? Sorry. Tall but not a rugby player? Sorry. The of the only reasons I've been wearing the same pants is because I haven't found anything else that fits well
• _trampeltier 8mo ago
  People change, not just since the 90s. Just look an old movie, like Dirty Harry, or look pictures from athletes in the 70s, 80s. It does not so much plays a role, as long you try in a store. But online it sucks very much right now. Recently I ordered a pair of pants, and it was something like 3 sizes smaller, than the same model in another color. I'm not sure, if online stores and factorys think people would not return the item and just order a size larger or smaller again. I think thats also a point where the EU should push, a true size with cm.
• thesumofall 8mo ago
  Beyond all, I think cost is a major driver. A key difference in cheaply made clothing vs more expensively made clothing is the sophistication of the tailoring. However, the interesting side effect is that cheaply made clothing sort of fits everyone badly while more expensively made clothing either fits you really well or not at all. If(!) you care about well-tailored clothing you're either lucky that one of the brands fits your body or you need to go the custom-tailoring route. Custom tailoring wasn't anything special for a long time but we sacrificed it to our desire for cheaper clothing (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!)
• vessenes 8mo ago
  The lede is sort of in there, but buried - or at least not talked about from an economic perspective: Right now, women consumers put up with one-ish body type (although fit model shapes vary by brand) - manufacturers thus make up to ten sizes or so of any given garment. Google fashion industry waste if you want to learn some depressing things, but - because of fashion lead times, production methods, etc, a lot of these clothes will not get sold. So there’s production waste. There are roughly 10 core body types according to this website. So, to make ‘properly’ shaped garments for a much larger group of women is going to take roughly 120 different garments for a single design. This just isn’t going to work for manufacturers given current production methods. I’m working on a fun sweater company right now, and it’s a very analog process - with humans and production and yarn all in different countries - ending in a single garment for analysis that is then put on a model for photography. I cannot imagine trying to scale it to 100 different shape/size combos. Upshot - right now: choose from the following: 1) create mild differentiation and hit a product target that blends looking good on the site/shelf/model with one that looks good on the customer; keep 90% of the market 2) lean in hard on one of the “10”-ish body types - give up the rest of the market, but have happy customers 3) Try to sell stuff that can get auto-sized properly via algorithm and delivered “on-demand” Most big companies are big, and therefore chose 1. Some smaller companies chose 2. In the happy circumstance that they chose 2 for conventionally attractive bodies, you’ve heard of them (Chanel). Some have transitioned into this space over a longer period, like Burberry. If you’re not a target customer, they may still have fans, but you might not have heard of them, e.g. Good American. A few companies have tried 3 — direct to consumer via brick and mortar retail — (there was an MIT company deploying Shima Seki knitting on Newbury street in boston years ago), but they inevitably seem to move to a fast deployment D2C shipping model. I think this is likely because if you go into a boutique you do not want to pay $600 for a garment and then have to wait three hours for it to get made. Online this feels more palatable. So, we’ll probably see some continued innovation on the robot-knitting side of the world over the next ten years. In the meantime, companies mostly do what makes economic sense. And, it’s worth noting, operating the “automated” knitting machines and designing for them is no joke, it’s hard — really hard, and the software can be abysmal. So, this is an industry that’s a long way from rapid change, at least right now.
• MezzoDelCammin 8mo ago
  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 my case, I started with tailors, but kept running into small misunderstandings. Also, my taste keeps evolving. Start small with simple stuff, ideally old / second hand cheap clothes. Shirts, T-Shirts and bodice waistlines / "darts" are almost trivial once you can follow a straight line. First one will take a while, second will be much quicker, by third / fourth it's almost a routine and you can start iterating on your own preferences. They likely "will" evolve as you keep wearing the altered clothes. Depending on how much help you can get in the beginning, with maybe a 2-3h intro on how to use a sewing machine done by a friend who has sewing as a hobby, I'm pretty sure most people should be able to get their first alterations done within 4-5h. By second or third attempt, this time should be down to around 1h per item, including some setup (pinning - trying - ironing). At that point the DIY option is probably quicker than going to a tailor.
  • egorfine 8mo ago
    Is overlock a necessity?
    • MezzoDelCammin 8mo ago
      TLDR : "nice to have, but not a necessity" For some basic jerseys (think T-shirts) a basic zigzag is fine to begin with. That 100EUR sewing machine will have some fancier stretch stitch options that are slow, but "good enough" to look like an overlock (but can't do the cut of course). If you have the space / money, overlock is definitely what I'd get as a second / third machine. It's much quicker / cleaner if you're working on jerseys or shirts. But I still keep wearing the T-shirts I did when I was starting. On my list the first thing to do is to understand how to alter something to fit you. It can be done by hand (needle and thread), but to be reasonably efficient, the BOM would be "sewing machine, box of pins, scissors, piece of chalk / ruler and something to press / iron".
• 153957 8mo ago
  During FOSDEM 26 there was a talk about FreeSewing, a site where you can adapt clothing patterns to your specific sizes. https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/FVQVTA-freesewing/ https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/FVQVTA-freesewing/
• morissette 8mo ago
  Capitalism at work. As a male and full time woman’s wear person who has been married to a woman for 17 years I’ve experienced these truths from both sides. It’s funny how rectangle and inverted triangle body shapes are oft ignored as this would open up the market for clothes to be genderless.
• Aeolun 8mo ago
  I buy shirts with a collar and length size. Surely it can’t be that hard to do the same with waist size? Wait, I buy my pants with a waist and length size. So the problem is already solved?
• belZaah 8mo ago
  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 that’s absolutely doable by anyone as “unattainable”. Being able to attain it might be someone’s only hope and it’s just wrong to take it away.
  • Shywim 8mo ago
    Body shape is not only about obesity, or fat, and I think it's obvious the author don't talk about this when speaking of body shape.
    • wooger 8mo ago
      Maybe, but for sure the range of total size would be very different if everyone in the study was in shape. It'd be interesting to see this study repeated after a decade of GLP-1 drugs being available (and cheaper).
    • Aeolun 8mo ago
      Not sure. That level of size variance where the median falls off the middle seems to indicate a large extent of obese people. The distribution in Japan would be very different.
  • akpa1 8mo ago
    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 base shape to produce them.
    • globular-toast 8mo ago
• abkolan 8mo ago
  What a beautifully made website.
• bloqs 8mo ago
  The well is pemanently poisoned by marketing, this is not an engineering exercise
• jakub_g 8mo ago
  Semi-related thing that suprises me as a man (this is in Europe): I go to a clothing shop at the start of a new collection, and look at men's shirts for a given type: - there's 10 XS, 10 M, 10 XXL versions I go towards end of the season: - there's like 1 M remaining, but 8 XS, 8 XXL. Like if they were surprised and had no data that most population is M.
  • anilakar 8mo ago
    I had subscribed to clearance sale newsletters from quite a few retailers but unsubscribed when I noticed they put stuff in the outlet section only when they run out of sizes S to L.
  • d--b 8mo ago
    My impression is that at the end of the season, there's like 0 XXL, and 8XS, and 8Ms, but maybe that's just a perception problem.
  • altairprime 8mo ago
    As far as I can tell, this is a key driver of why the EU implemented anti-waste provisions for clothing starting in a couple years: because retailers will just order arbitrary amounts of clothes and shred (!) whatever is unsold, which since they made their profit, doesn’t cost them anything and saturates the planet in formerly-wearable clothes that have been destroyed out of wasteful sloppiness. If they actually had to put in effort to design production runs — or else see their clothes sold at the bargain store — then they may well start acting less “why bother, we got our money, next”. One hopes, anyways.
    • KK7NIL 8mo ago
      > because retailers will just order arbitrary amounts of clothes and shred (!) whatever is unsold, which since they made their profit, doesn’t cost them anything This is so obviously untrue. It's painfully obvious that the less they waste, the more profit they make, so there's plenty of incentive for them to order the right amount.
• ChrisMarshallNY 8mo ago
  It’s worse for women, than men, but all tweens/teens have this issue, and it drives parents nuts. Also, these kids are chronically insecure, and the need to be "fashionable" is intense. I remember hating JNCO pants, for my daughter. To be fair, at least they were baggy. I have similar issues with shoes, and I’m in my 60s. My wife refuses to buy me shoes. If I buy Clarks, I’m size 9. If I buy New Balance, I’m size 10.5. If I buy Hoka, I’m size 11. It’s crazy.
  • jakub_g 8mo ago
    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".
    • jagged-chisel 8mo ago
      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.
      • ChrisMarshallNY 8mo ago
        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.
  • monsharen 8mo ago
    Will risk sounding like an ad but I created a service for this exact problem because I grew tired of the returns. Size charts sucks and it should be treated as a data problem. You have shoes at home that fit you well, and I have shoes at home that fit me well. If we have shoes that fit well in common, then I know which size to get in your models. Scale that up to millions of users and the problem of sizing is solved. The service is live, it works and it's collecting people's sizes. Don't want to post the URL but it pops up when you search for shoe models and size guides on Google. Just wanted to let you know that your wife might be able to buy shoes for you again soon.
• throwawy_gender 8mo ago
  I need to say this out loud: Can you really imagine a similar article being written about men's clothing sizes? Seriously, get in shape. Lose weight. I don't care if it takes drugs (ozempic, whatever). If women in other highly developed countries can have a median body weight much less than American women, then I am not very symapthetic to their "clothing size crisis".
  • pickleRick243 8mo ago
    I was looking for the first comment along these lines. Regardless of your views on this topic, everyone has an opinion and it's funny how the entire comment section finds a way to self-censor.
• olliebrkr 8mo ago
  Not sure how we expect this to be fixed when women still don't get proper pockets.
• brikym 8mo ago
  Please make one on US measurements and metric.
• bnxts21 8mo ago
  I love sites like this
• d--b 8mo ago
  Here's an asumption: When you get into the overweight category, sizing becomes a lot more difficult, because then the ratios that are relatively standard for non overweight bodies (like waistline to tallness) completely break down. So now you don't need just one parameter, but at least two: waist and tallness. And this causes the number of different sizes to explode. So instead of (S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL, XXXXL), you'll need (S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL) waist x (S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL) length. And it becomes unmanageable for brands to cover all the different sizes without having a large amount of waste. Men trousers and shirts do this, because generally men fashion don't change that fast, so the brands can carry many models for a longer time period.
• tantalor 8mo ago
  I wish people would stop with the scrollytelling for data pieces like this. It does not help the case, and distracts more than anything.
  • moodyScarf 8mo ago
    on this website i thought it was nice, although i agree in general. i think it really varies between device and is sometimes super awkward.
• abustamam 8mo ago
  My wife is petite (4'11") and always struggled to find clothes that fit her. She dresses conservatively because we're Muslim but she doesn't really like wearing the long gowns that many Muslim women wear, so she wears jeans and long sleeved shirts. Anuway, she always struggled to find clothes that fit her well because she's small. Her uncle had to tailor a lot of her clothes growing up. A while back she found a fashion-as-a-service called Short Story, which markets itself for petite women; it basically sends her clothes every X-months and she tries them on and send back the ones she doesn't like or fit, tells her stylist why she is sending them back, and pays for the ones she keeps. Every time she keeps something from them she donates something from her wardrobe (net zero is the goal). And she looks great in them! They're fashionable (to the degree that my dev opinion on fashion matters), modest, and most importantly they fit her well. Disclosure: I interviewed with Short Story last year as a consulting role but it didn't pan out.
  • robocat 8mo ago
    If you've got the yen for travel, maybe visit an Asian country where she might be a "normal" size against the population. I went to Vietnam and noticed the sizing difference for myself: suddenly I was oversized. I've also seen the opposite in other countries where sizes are much bigger and I'm on extra small sizings. Vietnam is great for getting tailored clothing too - if you can avoid the worst of the tourist tailors. Worth a try, if you can find a country that has a style she likes...
    • abustamam 8mo ago
      Before kids we traveled to Malaysia, Japan, Singapore. But since we are not really fashion-forward I don't think either of us cared to look at clothes there. I did get a suit cheaply made and tailored in Malaysia back in college. One of the few pieces of clothing that still fits me perfectly now.
• npilk 8mo ago
  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 https://pilk.website/2/model-is-6-2-wearing-size-medium
  • scherlock 8mo ago
    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.
    • lrivers 8mo ago
      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.
    • anthomtb 8mo ago
      I have the exact same problem. 6'0 (183.5 cm) height, 160lbs (72kgs), and a long torso. Mediums and even smalls are ideal for my shoulders and chest but it's a crapshoot if they will keep my belly button covered through a normal range of motion. I don't want to bare it and can't imagine anyone wants to see it. Tentrees, Fox and Prana are the brands I've found that consistently fit my upper body.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]