Stop the sizing madness!!!

[Jolt]

5'1" and about 110#'s...she wears a womens large in most things.

Holy crap, that is officially ridiculous! I'm not far from her size, and I haven't run into that situation with anything (there are some tops where I'll wear a medium, but that's partly because I don't like things skin-tight). Usually I wear a small in most things (XS in L.L. Bean though--their stuff seems to run a bit big). It really would be nice if sizes were more standardized, but I doubt that will ever happen.

[Pax]

Holy crap, that is officially ridiculous! I'm not far from her size, and I haven't run into that situation with anything (there are some tops where I'll wear a medium, but that's partly because I don't like things skin-tight). Usually I wear a small in most things (XS in L.L. Bean though--their stuff seems to run a bit big). It really would be nice if sizes were more standardized, but I doubt that will ever happen.

She ordered three polos from LL Bean recently, all identical except color, all size medium (she wanted less tail to tuck in)...all three fit differently and two fit so poorly they had to be sent back. I don't know if it's poor quality control or just that there is NO standards for sizing womens garments.

[Jolt]

She ordered three polos from LL Bean recently, all identical except color, all size medium (she wanted less tail to tuck in)...all three fit differently and two fit so poorly they had to be sent back. I don't know if it's poor quality control or just that there is NO standards for sizing womens garments.

That's pretty bad--I would think their quality control is better than that; I've never had a problem with any of their products. Must have been an off day or something! At least they have a good return policy for the times when this sort of thing does happen.

[Susan Otcenas]

A few years ago, I wrote a post to a cycling list I'm on about women's sizing. Unfortunately I can no longer put my fingers on the magazine article I mentioned....

"If anyone REALLY cares, I have a great 4 page article from a recent edition of Gear Trends magazine, which I'd be happy to share if asked. Some brief
tidbits:

Ladies, ever wonder exactly what "size 2" or "size 12" actually means, and why its called that? Well, women's sizing was originally age-based. A size 16 was to fit an average women (for that time - 1800's) of age 16.

On into the early 1900's, more clothing began to be purchased rather than made at home. Still sizing wasn't much of an issue, because almost all clothing and department stores had alterations departments.

Mid-1900's, alterations started to be phased out and the real trouble began. In the 1940's the USDA and the US military attempted a comprehensive survey of body measurements. They manually measured 8,000 subjects, mostly white and of military age. To quote the article "Not exactly an ideal survey sample of a national body-type".

ASTM (American Society for Testing and MAterials) actually has a set of measurements and standards, but they are very outdated (based in part on that 1940's survey) and no manufacturer currently adheres to them.

Currently, there is no uniform standard for sizing among apparel manufacturers. Two updated surveys have recently been conducted, one using about 5000 Americans and Europeans, another using more than 10,000 Americans (this one called SizeUSA, see http://www.tc2.com/what/sizeusa/index.html ) . The results reveal that women, on average, are becoming hippier and thicker through the waist, relative to their bust measurements. That is, more pear shaped and less hourglass shaped.

All of the above hasn't even begun to address "fit preference" ie. Loose, snug, etc. or the issue of "vanity sizing", the process by which manufacturers make clothing ever larger so that ever larger americans can still fit into the same size clothing.

I could go on, but I'm sure I've lost most of you already."

Susan

[ridebikeme]

I agree with everyone here.. clothing sizes are ridulous! I think part of the difference is that most everyone is NOT made here in the US anymore. Like others, I used to buy my clothes from LL Beans and had very good luck. Unfortunately now they are purchasing most of their clothes from outside the US and they are definitely some quality problems in terms of consistent sizing... Perhaps as consumers we need to let these ratilers know this??

In terms of larger cycling jersies, look towards clothing from Terry. They generally have a wide range of sizes and are quite helpful online or the phone.

[Kitsune06]

No kidding. I've always had luck with PI... but some other brands I've tried... ???

For instance- the size M cannondale shorts I have, while they fit ok on my hips/butt, thighs, the elastic bands across waist and thighs are just TIGHT. Do they expect me to have a nice round booty and stick figure legs or something? I'm a freakin' biker! If I have *ANY* muscle on my body AT ALL it'll be on those thighs! Geez!

</rant>

[JenLeath]

I am full busted with broad shoulders on top, and narrow hips on the bottom. Everything fits wrong. I wear a medium in PI shorts, and an XL in tops. Some XL's don't even fit. Wetsuit fitting is grueling. I think I may have to go to a Desoto two piece. I have a pair of shorts from one store that is an 11, then another from a different store size 17. What's up with that?

[pooks]

That's a fascinating history of sizing, Susan. No wonder it's a mess.

But you'd think that Terry, Shebeest and other women-specific cycling clothing manufacturers would see the benefit of getting together on sizing. It would revolutionize the biz and they'd sell MORE, not less.

Also, more large sizes. I mentioned that to a friend (who is not small, herself) whose husband is a thin cyclist. When I complained about the sizing, even she bought into the "there aren't enough heavy women cyclists to justify making cycling clothes for them," because she saw only skinny women out there when her husband officiate races.

Sigh.

[Crankin]

I pretty much stick to one brand (Terry) in cycling clothes. The x smalls fit me perfectly. I find Athleta brand also fits me well and they have many pants in petite sizes (duh, there are a lot of us short people out there).
What I find confusing are the sizing charts that cycling clothing companies put out. If I read them correctly, I should be wearing a small, not an extra small. But the shorts are too big in the waist and the jerseys are just huge. I appreciate that Terry even makes x-smalls in a variety of styles.
As far as regular clothes go, I buy most of my clothes at Ann Taylor Loft, because it's the only store near me where i can actually run in and buy something. My size there has been going down, down, and down, even though I have been around the same weight for 5 years. I also buy at Banana Republic Petites (there is ONE store in the whole state of Massachusetts). Like, I can go in and buy a plain cotton t shirt that actually fits and isn't down to my thighs and baggy. I also have ordered a whole lot from J Crew catalogs, but they seem to have a conspiracy against short people. First, they stopped selling petites in the stores. Then, they stopped making sweaters in petites. Now, there's no shorts in petites. They have pants, suits, a few skirts and dresses. No t shirts. I am pretty much done with them!
OK, done with my rant. Going to get ready to ride.

[Python]

Same problem here in the UK. I'm 5' 1" and weigh 91 lbs. Shopping for clothes is a nightmare. Most things are too large for me. Usually I get told to go to the kids department. I feel really embarrassed having to try on kids clothes at my age (50). What is wrong with the manufacturers? Do they think we all come in one size? Grrrrrrrrr