To not understand why (and be against) “improved sizing”

[SchrodingersMeowth]

So, I don’t know if this is just in Primark or everywhere will be taking it on but I’m a bit shocked that the sizing for clothes is being re-marked. For example a 10-12 which was previously medium will now be small, 8-10 XS etc.

This feels like an excuse to ignore true sizing and doesn’t seem healthy! Tbh it reminds me of the people who try to push the “Marilyn monroe was a size 16 and perfectly healthy”. But she wasn’t was she, not a size 16 now anyway!!!

I feel like sizing is already generous and changing it to make people appear even smaller when they haven’t changed isn’t good for accountability for the fact that obesity is an ever growing crisis.

I don’t agree that my “new” size reflects my actual size and I’m sure this is going to be the same for many people.

I just don’t see what the point was in doing it!

Has it not occurred to anyone that this is because after Brexit and yet unknown trade agreements have been established, manufactures are planning ahead were to source their clothes from?

It makes more sense for them, if they are coming from different factories to go to a XXS-XXL, rather than be constrained withing a two inch size difference?

Primark sizing isn't generous. My DD is an 8-10 in there, everywhere else she is a 6-8. It depends on what the item of clothing is and what body part that you need to fit, hips, thighs, shoulders, etc.

A size 12, was a small, in the 80's. I have dressmaking patterns from the 70's onward. A 14 was a medium. A 12 was the average size. The issue is that the inch sizing has changed.

I stick to New Look and Dorothy Perkins for high street shopping. You only have to try on a couple of items and the sizing is consistent, so you can then order online. I've found lately that Asda's stuff varies, though.

I see your point. Although I think there is a valid argument that women are much taller and therefore bigger than 50years age and doesn’t necessarily indicate people are getting fatter. So changing sizes is maybe valid? My main issue is that prechildren size 8 is a totally different shape to a post children size 8. I guess I just can’t shop in the teen shops anymore

It is vanity sizing and I am not sure it is good.
I have been a size 10 more or less for over 20 years. I weigh more than 6 kilos more than 20 years ago and my body shape has changed for the worse since childbirth. I have old clothes and I cannot anywhere near fit into them.
Size 10 in marks and Spencer is now too big for me. It is madness.
It is also more obvious when abroad in some places I am in much bigger European sizes like 38-40.

I don't see why the labels being changed makes much difference. The reason it changed was they introduced a new sizing (12-14 where before you could only get 10-12 and then 14-16 and a lot of people are these sizes) maybe if it goes well they may add a 8-10 size. The size 12 is still a size 12. The only sizing that is effected is the ones with a size range so like 10-12 not just normal size 10.
Maybe instead of doing small medium etc they could just colour code them. So for example size 10-12 is green ?

Its stupid, 10 is not a S - it’s going to just confuse everyone. I am small - so I buy XS it a 4/6z What will be be now? XXS?! And what number is that? 2?

One thing though - a 10 usually is a small anyway in most shops and it’s been this way for quite a while. Nothing has changed there. In all sports shops Small means a size 10 (accordingly to their charts - this is the case with my Adidas leggings for example). Also I have found the same with other stores that do their clothing in S/M/L (like Zara or Gap for example).

I am another who doesn’t care what the label says as long as it’s consistent

34 bust not underband and yes it fits snugly. Any smaller an underband and it's uncomfortable and leaves red marks.

Its vanity sizing because, as has been pointed out an old 36C is a now 32E F whatever it is, and people like to have a bigger cup size. You only have to look at the threads on the matter to see the happy people when they're told they're number has gone down and their cup has gone up.

34 bust not underband and yes it fits snugly. Any smaller an underband and it's uncomfortable and leaves red marks.

Its vanity sizing because, as has been pointed out an old 36C is a now 32E F whatever it is, and people like to have a bigger cup size.

No, bra sizing is not vanity sizing. You seem to have zero clue about bra sizing though.
The number in bra size is band not bust.
The band is stretchy. If your under bust measure is 30", how does it make any sense to wear a bra that is 4 inches wider to start with and stretches to even more? How is that supposed to support your breasts?

Any smaller an underband and it's uncomfortable and leaves red marks

Probably because your cups are too small. 30" underband makes complete sense to me, that is my actual underbust measurement. Adding 4" to that does not make sense, that's a number that bears no relationship to my body since my breasts are bigger than that. And no, I am not delighted to have a bigger cup size, I already knew I was an hourglass and had decent sized breasts. I am delighted to wear a bra that fits properly though and is comfortable.

It does take a bit of getting used to, although it's easier if the bra is a really good fit, which can take a while to find. Some health issues might make the tighter bands more difficult, but there are designs which have stretchier backs than others, and going up by one back size makes more sense as a compromise (not two) given how the things are made these days. When I last tried on a bra with 4/5 inches added to the back size it was obvious to me how it was sliding around and sometimes dug in to breast tissue, because the cups moved about while I was wearing it.

Not sure what you mean by red marks. I have the sort of skin on which an ordinary waistband or sock elastic leaves red marks. it's nothing like chafing from shoes that haven't been worn in, which can be painful and break the skin and which obviously is bad. A bra would leave marks the same as a waistband or socks do, just a bit tighter.

I didn’t think of Brexit but that makes sense! Problem is if you’re an 8-10 then there’s no size for you since it skips it. It’s now 6-8, 10-12

Totally in agreement agreement that bra sizing is fine. Although I’m a 26 band which is myrder to fund so usually end up in a 30 because it can be hard to find 26s and 28s without spending a lot more. I personally usually just stick with (number) sized sports bras or go to charity shops.

10 isn’t that small if you’re short (5’3”) and tbh I still know lots of short people, teens might be getting bigger but plenty of short arses still in their 20s

Probably because your cups are too small.

If the measured size isn't fitting may also have a bigger cup size than you measure with the tape. I have this and my size sounds daft because I have shallow shaped breasts (which means they don't stick out that much). Whilst there's obviously something there, they do not look that* big. I didn't used to be shy about mentioning my bra size if it was relevant but now someone who didn't know the new measurement approach would probably think I was fibbing in a really stupid way.

I have a vintage M&S skirt (somewhere...) that says on the label: “St Michaels Size 12 Waist 24 inches”
And no, it never did fit but I loved it so much I lived in hope 🙄

Yeah I get this. I’ve been the same size/weight for years, but somehow my clothes size has been creeping down....I recently bought a pair of size 4 trousers....which Was never the case in the past.

MissMisery I remember in the 90s the waist size on labels for 8s was 23in and for 10s, 24in (although the fit was sometimes bigger) - the label sizing had been creeping up slightly even then.

In 2018 up until now, a size 10 is a 28 inch waist, although many clothes are cut larger than this (and 28" waist was absolutely a size 14 in the not so distant past). If this shifts so that a size 8 (current XS) is a 28 inch waist and now XXS, that means that a size 10 will be an XS and will mean a 30 inch waist. A size 12 will be a size S and mean a waist size of 32 inches.

A waist size of 31.5 inches is considered to be likely to lead to health problems. NHS link: www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/why-is-my-waist-size-important/

I do not think we should be labelling a size of waist likely to lead to health problems as small. It's psychologically bad for us to view this size as small. I completely agree that everyone needs to be able to buy clothes and everyone needs to be clothed appropriately. But we should not be normalising something that is very likely to be unhealthy in this way. Better to keep the current sizes and expand the range and at least then nobody thinks they are small while they are actually at risk of health problems.

With the size change, a size M will have a waist size of 34 inches. In my link before, this is the size at which you are advised to consult a medical professional as you are at very high risk of health problems. I'm horrified that this is about to be labelled 'medium'.

I also don't like the boundaries of two sizes, when I'm not pregnant I'm a 10 , occasionally a 12 bottom in some shops, if I lose weight I drop to an eight (and people tell me I look ill) , I want to buy one size not 8-10 or 12-14, what if you're 10-12 then what??

Glaciferous that’s really interesting. I suppose the real question is how much responsibility do the fashion industry and retailers have to take with regards to public health? Do they make thick woolly jumpers in autumn and winter because they feel an overwhelming responsibility to keep the people of Britain toasty warm? No. It’s because people want to buy new stuff each season. Are they sizing their clothes to be representative of the health risks imposed by people carrying x amount of excess weight and being a certain size? No. It’s about sales. I know it’s annoying for those who are already small, but I’d imagine it will motivate purchases in the mid and upper range especially in younger people who don’t remember that they used to be a 14 but now they’re a 10 or XS. Measurement based sizing as for men would be brilliant, no mixed messages and no emotive language (triple XL leggings anyone? / XXXS Top?) just a reasonably accurate measure of the actual size of the clothes so people can buy what they need! It’s really quite ludicrous!

Unless you’re blessed with a perfectly proportionate body shape, you really don’t want standardised sizing everywhere.

We all have different shapes. If every brand started using the same sizing, most of us would be left with ill-fitting clothes at best. Right now different brands suit different body shapes. Sure, it’s frustrating to be, say, pear shaped, and have things look great in one store and nothing fit properly in the next, but if every brand had to keep to the same measurements, nothing would properly fit a pear shaped person anywhere. Brands can’t all make 100+ sizes to cover every variation in measurements.

There’s a lot of difference in men’s sizes as well, it’s just that a lot of men don’t actually care if something’s a good fit, it’s just enough that it does fit. That’s why you’ll see a lot of men wearing jeans that fit in the waist but are too tight or loose through the rest of the leg, or shirts that fit their shoulders, but are tight or baggy through the arms or waist. Men who do care have to choose their brands carefully just like women.

Brands can’t all make 100+ sizes to cover every variation in measurements.

They manage to make Male clothing in a variety of chest/leg/waist measurements without resorting to giving it an arbitrary number which doesn’t mean the same thing everywhere. Yes, they have S/M/L which may differ but they tend to give the measurement range for the sizes.

Glaciferous- I completely agree.

how much responsibility do the fashion industry and retailers have to take with regards to public health?

Measurement based sizing as for men would be brilliant, no mixed messages and no emotive language (triple XL leggings anyone? / XXXS Top?) just a reasonably accurate measure of the actual size of the clothes so people can buy what they need!

Well, no responsibility at all, I suppose! The idea of measurements works OK, but in fact the actual measurements listed for clothes now aren't accurate. I have a 28" waist, in actual real inches, and am wearing 25" jeans. Because if I wore the 28" jeans, they would absolutely hang off me! They would not fit my waist or my hips and the skinny ones would be sail-like on my legs. My measurements and the stated measurements for lots of sizes bear no relation to the sizes that fit me. The whole vanity sizing thing has gone so far that me, a person who is well aware that I have a 28" waist and is OK with that even though it's a bit tubby for me, is buying and wearing clothes with measurements several inches smaller. It's genuinely nuts. I don't know if other people believe these measurements or not! I hope not! Because I am not in the least skinny in terms of body fat etc and yet I'm wearing a tiny size (the smallest size available) presumably aimed at teenagers. And I'm not even the size on the label! I haven't had a 25" waist since well before pregnancy (my kid is nearly 12).

Glaciferous exactly, unfortunately they have zero responsibility to label their clothes ‘healthily’, and while I totally agree that a size 12 shouldn’t be labelled small (when I was a 12 I had a bmi of 25/26, so was overweight), I also completely agree that the sizes should be factual and accurate. It’s just another useless term such as in the food industry that has no legal meaning (like ‘light’ or ‘natural’ for example) but they are so ingrained in us with such strong connotations.

High street shops are already heavily biased towards staight-up-and-down women and provide more or less nothing for hourglass shapes.

This! I'm sick and tired of struggling to find trousers that don't gape round my waist but accommodate my arse. I'm also top heavy and would like, just occasionally, to wear a dress that has a shape to it and isn't like a sack round my hips.

I know this is an old thread, but I went to primark today to get some sports clothes.
Anytime I've shopped there before I been a size 6 (jeans) and size 8 for tops. In most other shops Im a 6/8

I didn't know about the new and "improved" sizing. So I grabbed my normal sizes 6-8 (XS)
Got home and tried them on and they are TINY! My 13 year old daughter is a smilar size to me, just shorter. I asked her to try them on. They were too small for her!

So got straight back in the car to return them as today is my only free day for a while. This time I tried others to get the size right. Apparently according to primark I'm now a size 10/12 (S)

I'm sorry but I don't work hard to eat well and work out to then be classed as a size 10/12
No offence to anyone, no matter what your size is! I have no issue with other women's bodies large or small.
But for me personally being a size 6-8 my entire adult life and working hard to maintain that to then be having to buy clothes 10/12 was deflating.

From now on I'll only be shopping in primark for the Disney homeware range. Not a chance in hell I'll be getting clothes there.

I will say again, this isn't an attack or meant to offend anyone of any size! This is just a rant about primark making me feel annoyed for completely changing the size chart! Everything in there has been shrunk and then relabbeled as a bigger size.