To think vanity sizing is not just about people being fatter

[goddessoftheharvest]

Not really a taat- I've been thinking about this every time it pops up on MN

Any thread about weight, there's always comments about how vintage size 12s were tiny, and the equivalent today would be a size 16. This serves to point out how people are getting gradually fatter without really noticing.

Aibu to think that might be a bit simplistic?

People nowadays have access to almost unlimited junk, yes, but they also have access to affordable vitamins, milk etc

My great granny was tiny, but she was raised on bread and tea in a slum with 8 siblings, two of them had rickets, and she was riddled with arthritis from a relatively young age

My gran (her daughter) had a marginally better upbringing, but not much- less children, better housing, more to go round, but still a restricted diet, no heating etc. She is a little taller than my great granny, about 5'3. Much healthier too, as she has had access to better food and living conditions from young adulthood

My mum is 5'4, and although she's still small, she's not as noticeably tiny as the other women in the family. Was still very poor through her childhood at times

I have had access to better food and housing etc than any of them, and I am much bigger. I am 5'6 and even at 7 stone I couldn't fit into some of my mum's clothes because my shoulders are so broad

My dad's family were poor, but they were country people. They got fresh air, sunlight, grew their own vegetables, liberated the occasional pheasant. Anecdotally they all seemed a bit taller/longer lived than the town lot

Also I see loads of old photos where the women are short, but quite round/stocky. So not necessarily fat, but not sylph like size 8 either

So aibu to think it's probably down to better nutrition and lifestyle as well? I see similar with friends my age too. We are all taller than our older female relatives. One of my friends is a power lifter and she would never fit into vintage clothes, but she is super healthy and just pure muscle- that would have been unusual back then too

Good points Worra.

Belts, goddess. I cannot wear trousers without a belt.

Of course, this could always be eliminated if we just sized women's clothing by the inch the way we do for men's clothing. Would solve a lot of problems.

Incidentally, I was having a wardrobe clear out the other day, trying things on to decide what to keep. The jeans I was wearing at the time were a 16. I mostly buy size 18 at the moment. But I tried on a pair of work trousers that are a size 20 and fit me perfectly. Is it any wonder people often don't have any clue how big they actually are when the numbers mean so little?

Long thread but just wanted to throw it out there - I've had loads of vintage clothes over the years and the sizing doesn't seem any different until you get pre 1950. Then I think people were just smaller in everyday. There's definitely a higher number of chubbier people nowadays but anecdotally. It convinced the sizing has been that different the last 50 years.

Has anyone here had trouble with Florence and Fred sizing?

this could always be eliminated if we just sized women's clothing by the inch the way we do for men's clothing. Would solve a lot of problems.

Or cm.

But I agree - 50cm or 20" - they are constant measurements, and women's dress sizes simply aren't, not even in the same shop, often.

Things might not always fit right - I often find if things fit my hips, they are way too lose on my waist, but unless I go in for bespoke tailoring, I don't suppose that's necessarily going to change, but I know some shops fit better than others. I can be wary of trying new places, because I don't know how they'll fit me, and I can't always be bothered to find out.

I come from a generation that had a size 10 as 32 bust 22 waist and 34 hips and this was the norm for a lot of girls. It wasn't a ludicrous pipe dream.

Yet now these are the vital statistics to be a model + being at least 5ft 8"

Many women's trousers don't have belt loops so belts often not an option.

Agree with owl that gaps between sizes are often massive which is ridiculous considering it is supposed to be 2 inches in circumference, which is less than an inch in width.

Often the 12 will barely do up but in the 14 I look like the after photo in a weight loss commercial so both unwearable.

But trousers have got longer. I need a minimum of 32 inch inside leg and 20 years ago I would be lucky if long would be long enough, sometimes long would be 31 so a bit short, especially if wearing a bit of a heel (I don't do proper high heels) but now I can sometimes even wear regular length.

I need smartish but cheapish washable trousers for work as I need to look smart but also visit dirty places and Wear a boiler suit and climb ladders etc. Sometimes they are just so hard to find - currently have some M&S ones but have the sizing problem described above. I have taken in the 14s and mostly wear those.

I'm 32, 5'9 and when not pregnant weigh between 9.10 and 10.4
I'm a size ten, exactly as I was fifteen years ago. I have clothes from 1999 that still fit me in exactly the size I buy now.

I haven't experienced vanity sizing at all. Even in designer sizes I'm a 42, same as I've always been.

maybe the shops which I shop in (River Island, Topshop, Viv Westwood when funds allow) haven't changed their sizing.

In any case I don't think it's a bad thing for women to go up a size or two in middle age, the slim women of my acquaintance in their forties look extremely aged compared to their plumper (and by plumper I mean size 12/14) counterparts.

if we're getting bigger it's not necessarily a bad thing within reason.

I certainly don't intend to maintain a very slim figure in to middle age, I just don't think it's becoming on anybody.

IMO vanity sizing is when a manufacturer has a size chart that should correspond to a certain measurement taken on the body but doesn't. For example according to my measurements I'm an almost perfect 16 in Boden - however I fit into the 14 almost always. I assume they cut the 14 roomier so people can say hey, I need to go down a size and then feel good about themselves. Deciding that a size 16 (arbitrary number) corresponds to a different set of body measurements in 2016 than it did in 1956 is not vanity sizing per se, I think.

I do think our body shapes have changed and I don't think clothing manufacturers are au courant with this. Just adding a few cm on all waists as if we're all cylindrical doesn't do it, nor does that assumption that bigger size = taller person (as a PP wrote about pattern drafting). On a vintage clothing blog I read she once pointed out that women's bodies have always been expected to correspond to an ideal but it's only these past few decades we've been expected to do it without help, i.e. corsets. Not wearing corsets/girdles makes a big difference to what measurements patterns should be I think.

Every generation gets taller than the last so its inevitable that it affects thibgs somehow, my great G was 4 11, Gran 5"2 mum 5" 3 ..I'm 5"8 .5 my sisters similar maybe 5'7 ...so somethings obviously bucked the trend my DF is v.tall but so men are taller now 6"3 is much more common place than 25 yrs ago,

I find sizing varies from shop to shop. Next is the worse. I also find I'm one size on top and bigger on bottom due to a large arse. My waist was, prepregnancy, the same size in inches as my mum's and slightly smaller than my sisters. Could I get their skirts and trousers on (including mum 60s clothes)? Nope my arse takes me to the next clothes size up.

Though I must admit I'm happy with my big arse .

HelenaDove, I'm sorry if I've upset you. I initially typed 'hobby horse' because I have those about various things, and thought better (or not) of it to put 'banging the drum' because I know it's a serious issue for you and for most of us.

My much missed gran was very loving but could be very cutting, along the lines of "Oh you've lost a pound, very good Lying but... you shouldn't have let it get on there in the first place!". It was a generational thing, I know but I suspect I'm not on my own here with an outspoken granny and her words still rattle around my head sometimes.

In the 70s when I was in my late teens, early 20s, I was a size 12. That equalled a 34-24-36 bust/waist/hip measurement. Most of my friends were a size 10 - that was 32-22-34. No one thought this was excessively thin, just normal.

I think we also need to consider that ready-to-wear sizing is a really recent phenomenon. In the 19th century you didn't go and buy your dresses off the shelf, you went and got the material and had them made. If you had less money you made over some other garments. If you had no money you sewed them yourself with whatever you could obtain. So sizing wasn't really much of an issue. Even as recently as 50 years ago it was almost expected that you might have to get standard sizes altered to fit you. It's only since the 1980s that we've had this crazy idea that you're somehow deformed if your body doesn't fit the exact measurements of some statistically number-crunched fitting model.

Marilyn Monroe was a US size 16 - ie a UK size 12 (albeit with a tiny waist)

What comes after size 0? Size 00 - it's teeny tiny. I could barely get one of my arms in a pair of 00 jeans, never mind one of my legs.

Marilyn Monroe's measurements were 37-23-36. Measurements are perhaps a better indicator than an arbitrary 'size' because it really does depend when and where that sizing was introduced.

I've never understood the concept of "fat". It means different things to different people. You could have two people of the same height, age and weight who look totally different due to body proportions and muscle to fat ratio.

Since having DC, I've had extra squidge around my midsection, even when I was very underweight I had a small pouch. Women's bodies change after giving birth and we change with age. I noticed that I was much straighter in figure until around 19/20 when I became curvier and my boobs got bigger. I was lucky back then because I was till very slim anyway.

Children are certainly much taller and broader than they used to be but I do wonder if it's linked to being overweight and overfed. In theory, as society, we are less active so we might well be less muscular and broad.

Ds has a lovely wall chart and each cm shows an interesting fact. Apparently it is predicted that by the year 2050 the average height will be 190 cm. That makes the average person slightly taller by then than 6 ft 2!

However an average stone age man was only 127 cm.

I agree banivani, I don't know how else to describe it other than vanity sizing when a manufacturers clothes don't correspond to their own size charts.

One week after having my last c-section I wanted some comfy jeans for my 34 inch stomach. I ended up with a pair of size 12 m&s cords, which were actually too big on the waist! According to their size chart, a size 12 has a 29 inch waist. The funny thing is though, if you looked on the reviews of the jeans online, people were commenting that they were "true to size".

Whenever I'm buying online, I always find my rough measurements on the size charts and then order a size or two down, which is ridiculous.

No worries Lying Witch I have had relatives say similar to me

regthemonkey I have heard simular my measurements are 36-26-36 and I currently were a uk size 6 or 8 depending on the shop. But with the rescent revival of 70s trends had a root through some old pieces my mother had kept and the 12 went no where near me!!

Also as well I have heard debates saying we consume so much estrogen now from drinking water (alot of people on contriceptives...which is another cause the pill wasnt around until the 60s) & from dairy (fed to cows to help them make milk.)

So women naturally have gotten bigger breasts and hips. So we are alot more curvey compared to the past.

Also as well in the past ALOT of women took amphetamines to stay thin. Dieting pills or prozac etc. And smoke to stay thin. Hardly healthy.

People forget that until fairly recently women were strapped up in corsets and girdles and whale-boned underwear which made them able to wear far smaller sizes.

That said, people are undoubtedly getting heavier. So the problem is probably two-fold.

I remember also being desperate to fit into ladies clothes like all my friends (late 90s) but I was super small build and couldn't wear any until I was about 16 as it was much more uncommon to see a size 8 in a store let alone a 6.

In fact up until a couple years it was unheard of to see size 6 and it wasn't uncommon for stores to start sizing at a 10.

That's how I remember it anyways.

Agree Londoner I never saw size 6s or 8s in the shops and i hit my teens back in 1986.