Went shopping in Vintage shops today, apparently every 10 years the companies add an inch

[EleanorReally]

so what was size 10 in the 1970s is now size 6.
to make us feel better!
Does that mean there were less size 20s in the 1970s? or equivalent.
how come,
there must have been sedentary occupations.
what is to blame?
fast food,
sugar in everything?

These are jeans that are supposed to fit on the natural waistline I’m referring to. I do find the looser ‘mom’ style from late 80s/early 90s fit better for my big arse ). I get ‘em in vintage shops.

Ok, so you're saying late 80s vintage jeans are bigger than 80s jeans you wore first time around, so that shows people have got bigger?

It doesn't!

I agree vanity sizing is a thing, but if you're getting your jeans in vintage shops and they are from the 80s, then all you're proving is that vanity sizing was alive and well in the 80s too - and what sold as a 10 in one shop was a 14 in another.

In the 60s/70s standard dress sizes were waist 10 inches smaller than bust and hips 2 inches larger than bust. At that time I was considered to be almost freakishly large at 5'9" and size 16, which was bust 38 waist 28 hips 40.

Size 12 was 34 24 36. Stores stocked up to size 18, sometimes 20 (but nothing in fashionable styles over 14/16). Anything larger was obtained from specialist 'outsize' suppliers and very few people were actually that size.

Back in the 1960’s, I had a 20 inch waist and 33 inch hips. I wore size 8 when I could find it, and (too big) size 10 with a belt to pull in the spare fabric when I couldn’t.
I weighed 6 stone 12 when I left school at 18, and put on a stone in 5 years at university, moving up to a size 10.
People are, on average, massively fatter now than then. For all the reasons PPs have mentioned - constant snacking on high calorie items, large portions, bigger plate sizes, sugary drinks, sedentary jobs and labour saving household gadgets. Plus driving everywhere instead of walking.
I think sizes should have been kept the same, as the shock value of having to buy sizes of 20 plus in specialist “Outsize” shops (yes, we had those in the 60’s!) might have been a wake up call for people to lose weight!

SarahandQuak So what seems to have happened with jeans in the last few decades is the styles have gone from fitted waist and wider hips to narrow hips and wider waist. I’m getting on a bit now so probably too sartorially confused for denim garments. I do notice the general trouser situation is towards larger waists tho’

Yes, I was a 12 in my late teens/20s and was 34-25-35. After I had DC1 I had to get some bigger skirts because my waist had gone up to 27 and that was a 14.

I am now a good 3 stone heavier and probably 10 inches bigger on each measurement, yet I'm still a 14. DD1 who is easily the size I was at her age is in size 6 and 8.

I was quite shocked that at only 12, DD2 is already 26/7 waist and 34/5 hips yet she isn't fat.

I can remember the "American" restaurants coming in during the early 80s and how big the plates were. That size has become normal. We have my grandma's china and my DM's glass bowls and all of it is so much smaller than our day to day crockery. A normal sized tin of beans used to feed 4 of us with toast when I was little. Now we'd expect to have a whole tin to ourself. With so much food available we've lost sight of what is a normal portion.

Absolutely agree about plate size,
food portions.
It is pure greed, or we have been duped

Modern plates are much bigger than they used to be, so people fill them up.

Wine glasses are ginormous.

I think a lot of it is also to do with being time poor.

I'm dreadfully overweight and eat a lot of convenience food. I commute 90 miles a day and work long hours.

It would have been very rare to commute 90 miles a day in the 70s, and even if you worked in the City in the 80s it was the norm to work 9-5.30/6.

Now the 'norm' is probably 8-7.30 plus 3 hours commuting for people like me. So you leave the house at 6.30am and get home at 8.30-9pm. You want to be in bed by 10pm ish because of the early start so there just isn't time to prep, cook, eat and then wash up.

It is just much easier to be overweight than slim these days. If I can struggle with my weight, basically always a fit and healthy person, then I can easily see how others can also.

A tin of beans would never have adequately fed four people for a meal, nor was it ever meant to - it does feed four as a side dish. A whole tin of baked beans is only about 200 calories.

This has been known for years. Clothes sizes have never been set in stone, manufacturers set them to suit their average customer. People have got bigger and taller, and most women stopped wearing foundation garments.
The most noticeable difference to me is not the actual size number, but that most clothes no longer cater for the classic hourglass figure. Only a minority of women have a very small waist in relation to the hips. I used to get a bit pissed off being made to feel fat because I didn't have a 24" waist, even though my BMI was 18 or something.

On a lighter note - here's some 70s food that would make it very easy to stick to a small portion.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-3642485/Photos-dishes-Seventies-cause-hilarity-Twitter.html

"Clothes sizes have never been set in stone, manufacturers set them to suit their average customer."

There was standardised sizing. But it deregulated in the mid-80s.

It was then set by individual manufacturers, and led directly to the explosion in vanity sizing (openly admitted by marketeers). It's rather slowed down now, but the sizes have 'eased' considerably. Suchbtyat - as attested many times in this thread and evidenced by sewing patterns that were never 'vanitied' a pre-1980s 12 is now an 8 (occasionally 6). Basically, you go 2 sizes down

A tin of beans would never have adequately fed four people for a meal, nor was it ever meant to - it does feed four as a side dish. A whole tin of baked beans is only about 200 calories

I don't know why people always feel the need to argue about this sort of thing. In my house, in my family in the 1970s when I was a teen we would have beans on toast for lunch and my DM would only open one tin for the 4 of us.

Other people probably did differently but floribunda you cannot argue with me that my family didn't share one can of beans because you weren't there.

I was looking for an old photo to see if the size of the can has shrunk (I assume it has) but no luck.

I don't remember ever being ridiculously hungry but back then we really didn't eat as much as people do now, myself included, because not only was it expensive but it just wasn't available.

My grandparents shared a half size tin of beans for lunch often, and had it with a single slice of toast.

I think DM used to open 2 tins for us, though there were 6 of us; still more beans per head than 1 tin between 4.

I remember the beans on toast one tin of beans for 4 too. And that would be a perfectly acceptable meal.
Not only were portion sizes smaller, but you didn't eat between meals. If you did it would be a piece of fruit (apple/orange/banana) or half a Club, Penguin or Kitkat.
Pop was an occasional treat, as were sweets and chocolate bars.

Heinz 'toast toppers' in the 70s came in tiny cans - less than 1/2 a standard can of beans.

Those m&s sizes sound about right. My waist is 25 inches and bust about 32. I'm small though (5 foot) and take a size 6-8. Some places even those sizes are too big. When I was a teen I'm pretty sure I was a 10.

With regards to portion sizes we used to have one of those lovely fray bentos steak pies between a family of 4. I'm sure dinner plates were smaller then too. Portion sizes are massive now.

In the 00s I would have a can of beans between me and 2 Dcs. So I can (gedit) believe 1 can between 4.

Oh and as if anyone carers I have a 26/27 inch waist, wear size 10 am 5'5" and have a BMI of 21.5. I think I could do with losing about 6Lbs (2-3kgs).

While we look odd standing in a row, we are all of us average amongst our peers

July, your daughter is definitely not average among her peers if she’s six foot! That’s still very tall for a girl these days. Sizing is so difficult when you are that tall (trust me)

No ready meals meant spending time washing and peeling spuds and carrots, cubing meat, dipping fish in breadcrumbs it was time consuming. You cooked a main meal a day and everyone ate it. And you didn't have snacks much except for the odd bag of crisps. And food was more expensive relatively. So there was more appreciation for your food. No constant eating like now.
Clothes were also loose in the 80s/90s. I have jumpers which are still loose on me now though I'm probably a stone and a half heavier now.

Other people probably did differently but floribunda you cannot argue with me that my family didn't share one can of beans because you weren't there.

I'm not arguing whether it happened, I'm arguing whether it would fill someone up or be considered adequate.

My weight problem is because my appetite is the same as when I was younger but my metabolism obviously isn't.