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

Sheba those links are fascinating. I was definitely born in the wrong decade- my measurements at the points shown there are 37-28-42. I'd fit perfectly into one of their larger sizes! I can't ever get anything that fits just right as everything is cut for an apple shape/straight up and down!

I think most people eat rubbish or eat too much or fail to exercise and that's why as a nation we are fatter. It's one thing being bigger but lean and solid muscle. It's something else being taller and fat. Don't forget that diet related diabeties is now a massive costly problem and that people in their 70's will outlive those in their teens.

I was sat in the heaving antenatal waiting room today and was thinking of this thread, because there were about two people below a size 16 and the rest a 16 or well above (including me!) Then I thought of the waiting rooms on Call the Midwife and how different they looked then.

Goodness, Spooky, I wonder why the people waiting for antenatal care might be on the larger side.

Goodness, Sheba, did you mean to not read my post properly?

I was comparing it to 50 years ago, where people were still pretty slim during pregnancy and just had a bump, but it's very common now to already be a bigger size before becoming pregnant.

Call the Midwife might be based on memoirs but the people in it are actors who will mostly be conventionally attractive and not generally a fair representation of ordinary people.

I don't think anyone disputes that people have got bigger but comparing a roomful of pregnant people to a cast of professional actors is a daft way of making the point!

Are you being deliberately difficult? It was just an observation in line with this thread, of course I'm not just comparing the actors, but stories and pictures from my grandparents time where they were much smaller.. Call the Midwife reflects that in general.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of comparing actual pregnant women to TV actors wearing bumps to prove anything at all. Your grandparents appeared two posts later.

I don't dispute that we are bigger but that was silly.

Women's clothes sizes are all over the place.

BMI is still statistically sound.

Body fat is the truest measurement - body fat percentages are rising.
Visceral fat percentages are rising.
Skeletons are not getting heavier, the amount of fat coated on the outside of them is increasing.

Kids who spend their childhood overweight will never ever be able to get lean later in life due to epigenetic changes so they will die young.
Sad but true.

Sheba interesting links! I don't really understand Fashion Incubator's point in the first half of the piece though - I get that it makes sense that a medium is the middle point of a manufacturer's sizing range, but there are also industry standards for sizing that have been developed because it is felt that the consumers need (rightly or wrongly) to "know their size" i.e. be able to predict that a medium will fit them. I frequently come across online retailers who don't post sizing charts, just S, M, L so I have no way of knowing what their range is, let alone what the middle of it is. Other than that I feel the piece is proof of my opinion that vanity sizing is not assigning a different arbitrary sizing number to clothes with certain measurements but rather the practice of cutting clothes roomier than stated so I can gain 10 kg and still buy the same size. ;)

I do not consider myself and expert on pattern drafting (Jesus no) nor any sort of retail expert, but as a consumer I feel I am allowed to question why retailers don't want my money. I want to buy clothes but the savvy retailers and manufacturers will not provide clothing cut for bigger busts for example, or else, like my local H&M (I swear I am THIS CLOSE to writing A Letter) have 20 size XS, 50 sz S, 40 sz M and 2 L. And then they sell out of L and never restock, and five months later all the XS and S are on sale. Then the savvy experts don't know their market, and I can't buy clothes. Even I can see that.

I have often pondered if babies being formula fed is one of the reasons people are getting broader and taller. Wealthy people in the past few generations would have had sufficient nutritious food so that doesn't explain why they were slighter.

I don't think YABU, OP. Audrey Hepburn has said herself that her small frame was down to malnutrition during the war years.

How the sugar industry shifted the blame to fat.

www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=2

I thought Audrey Hepburn was a lifelong anorexic?

She probably did suffer from an eating disorder of some sort according to her son's memoir, but that was quite likely to have been related to her living through a famine as a teenager.

Sheba No, you're being silly for being so petty and pedantic and jumping on an innocent post in your sarky manner.. Thanks for stressing out a pregnant woman!

Oh boy. If a slightly pithy comment in response to having said something a bit daft stresses you out for an entire day, parenthood is going to be a barrel of laughs for you. Chill out and try not to care what I think.

banivani, yes I know what you're saying. I think Fasanella is saying that people's dimensions vary so widely, even within the same size, that it is just not feasible to standardise sizing completely. You actually have a better chance of gettng things that fit when manufacturers can cater for core customers. Eg, I can never find jeans excel in two places. Frustrating on the one hand, but if they couldn't fit to their target customer, I'd never find jeans at all because there'd be no variation between stores. I may be medium on one store's target size line, a large in another and a small somewhere else. Fasanella uses ballerinas and barrel racers for her example but you could also lok at, say, Miss Selfridge and Ann Harvey. One caters for teenagers, one for middle aged women. Miss Selfridge comes up smaller because teenagers tend to be thinner and that's their customer, and vice versa. It's frustrating to be a different size everywhere but it really is the best way of being able to get a good fit SOMEWHERE. Someone has you as their target customer. Just don't pay the number on the dress any mind. It's simply an archaic method of helping pattern cutters know how to grade up and down from the medium

You should have a look round the blog. She writes a lot about fit and how it's gone downhill for everyone, partly due to demand for very cheap clothing that can't be very specific if it's going to hit the required price points. Lso some fascinating stuff about plus sizes.

...one caters for teenagers, one for middle aged women. Miss Selfridge comes up smaller because teenagers tend to be thinner and that's their customer, and vice versa

This is spot on IME. I find Fat Face, White Stuff, M&S etc to be very generously sized, but then they're targeting middle aged women. Whereas Topshop, which I tend to use as my "norm" for sizes, comes up smaller as the clothes are obviously targeting a different demographic.

And Next...well. Maybe the sizes are all over the place just like the styles of clothes are, as they don't know who the hell they're targeting?!

Criminal records give stats like height and eye colour.

When the first women convicts were sent out to Australia most of them if my memory is correct were around 5ft. So we are taller, it's great finding out you have a criminal ancestor, sadly I haven't found one yet.

Petrol legs spring to mid, I will happily walk 2 miles in to town, most of my neighbours drive in. I always find it funny that people will drive to a gym then do a frenetic workout and then drive back. I actually think that is bad for our bodies.

Running, exactly. But the mistake people are making is to think that you're fitting into lower numbered sizes because manufacturers are trying to flatter you or ignore our increasing dimensions. They aren't. Sizes have got bigger but only because we have, and they're adapting to the new normal. Size numbers are based around the medium of that particular size run, and the medium is based on whoever the target customer happens to be. It's nothing to do with flattering customers or pretending we are thinner. It's just target marketing, scaling and updating for modern consumers.

It's madness to suggest that manufacturers and pattern cutters, or indeed anyone creating consumer goods based around people's dimensions, should never update their sizing. Patterns exist from medieval times; should we be using those? Should we still be in houses where most people have to stoop to get through the doorway? Should we still have beds that are too short?

sheba I have seen her blog before but forgotten about it, so it was good to be reminded. :D I find fit very interesting since I've always had an awkward body to fit. Reading sewing blogs helped me understand a lot of fit issues ( although I still can't fix them lol). I also agree that fair enough if a brand wants to cater to a certain demographic - years ago I read an article about Swedish designer Filippa K and the article said that she designs basically for herself, tall and slim and quite straight. It was a lightbulb moment for me and I've never bothered trying on her clothes. However, having said fair enough, it's frustrating that no-one seems to make clothes for my demographic. ;)

mitten Petrol legs was a good expression. Fitness is more important to health than fatness. Cars are a scourge and a pestilence in this respect!

I don't think anyone designs clothes for me either! Sheba I was pleased to see a mention of shoe siding changing- every time there's a mention of vanity sizing here people talk about how shoes are the same. As someone with size 37/4 narrow feet I've noticed that I frequently need to size down (difficult when nobody wants to stock the small sizes) or that shoes are far too wide. I've noticed this more in the past few years.

Have thought some more. I think that using the sizing numbers 10,12,14 or 38,40,42 etc means that in a way you commit to using the industry standard for measurements. If you don't want to but want to design for the rod-straight or the Nicki Minajes among us then do so but create your own set of sizing numbers so it's clear what you're doing. However, I am Swedish and like standards. Don't get me started on kitchens.

In the 80s I found my perfect shoe size was a 41 which I found meant it was slightly larger than a 6.5 and not quite a 7. Anything with 41 on I could fit into. I still have a lot of my old size 41s but cannot get into a 41 nowadays. Apart from a pair of flip flops in summer, size large and a pair of Primark Uggs in winter I don't really buy shoes anymore. Have tried to buy a pair of trainers but can't find anything that will fit comfortably, I need a pair that has a low back heel upper as I find my back ankle bones rub against it. Probably won't be buying shoes anytime soon because,
A. I don't want 7" heels
B. I don't want leather shoes. And
C. I don't want frumpy shoes.

About people getting taller meaning they have got bigger doesn't hold water. When I was at school, in the 70s I was the shortest in my class. I was 5ft 5"

There were plenty of girls 5ft7" 5ft8" and even a number who were 5ft 10"+

All were slim size 10s or 12s size 12 being 34 24 36.

If you saw a fat person they would have been around 10st7lbs-11stone. Not the 14,15stone + people you see today.
Going to Florida in the early 80s we gawked at the sheer number of big sized people but it is now no different than walking down any high street in Britain today