Are Your Pants Lying to You? An Investigation

[onehandle]

I've ignored the waist sizes printed on pants for years. I take a spread of sizes near my neighborhood into the changing room and go from there.
_________________________

The devastating realization came in H&M. Specifically, in a pair of size 36 dress pants. I'd never bought pants at H&M before, and suddenly asked myself: how could a 36-inch waist suddenly be so damn tight?

I've never been slim — I played offensive line in high school — but I'm no cow either. (I'm happily a "Russell Crowe" body type.) So I immediately went across the street, bought a tailor's measuring tape, and trudged from shop to shop, trying on various brands' casual dress pants. It took just two hours to tear my self-esteem to smithereens and raise some serious questions about what I later learned is called "vanity sizing."

Your pants have been deceiving you for years. And the lies are compounding:



The pants manufacturers are trying to flatter us. And this flattery works: Alfani's 36-inch "Garrett" pant was 38.5 inches, just like the Calvin Klein "Dylan" pants — which I loved and purchased. A 39-inch pair from Haggar (a brand name that out-testosterones even "Garrett") was incredibly comfortable. Dockers, meanwhile, teased "Leave yourself some wiggle room" with its "Individual Fit Waistline," and they weren't kidding: despite having a clear size listed, the 36-inchers were 39.5 inches. And part of the reason they were so comfy is that I felt good about myself, no matter whether I deserved it.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/mens-fashion/pants-size-chart-090710

[mike r]

1. Interesting research

Good info. Thanks!

[Skink]

2. Men's underwear is lying big time.

but just the opposite to save on material costs 38's are actually 34's and so on.

[Warpy]

3. The same thing happened to women's clothing

Back in the early 60s, a size 8 meant either you were under 14 or anorexic. Now the equivalent size is 0-4.

The manufacturers will claim that the increased size in the waist is to include "ease," the amount of material required to allow us to move inside our clothing. It's the difference between having clothing look like you put it on versus clothing you look like you had to be pumped into. Generally speaking, the more expensive the clothing, the more "ease" has been built into it. I wear a full size smaller in an expensive shop than I do in WalMart.

One inch of ease is pretty stingy and won't feel quite right unless you go up an inch or two in stated size. Two inches of ease is minimum for a comfortable fit. Three inches or more starts getting into the vanity area.

The best bet is always to try the stuff on to see if it actually fits and if you can breathe and move in it.

[CrispyQ]

14. Size 0.

It doesn't even make sense. Where will they go from here? -2?

[drm604]

4. Isn't this false advertising?

This explains why different brands and styles of pants require different waist sizes to fit me comfortably. I've been told that it had to do with styling - "relaxed fit" versus (what... "nervous fit"?), for example. But this never really rang true to me. A waist size is a waist size is a waist size. A 38 is a 38 regardless. A 40 is a 40 regardless. So why do I have to try on a bunch of 38s, 39s, and 40s to find a pair that fit?

I guess this explains it. :grr:

[Quantess]

5. Oh, they're doing it to men's clothes too now?

I thought men wouldn't have the patience for unreliable sizing designed to flatter.

Women's sizes have been completely unreliable for several years, now. I don't even bother to look at the size anymore, the numbers are so worthless.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Great minds.

See post below yours.

and I see Warpy is in on it as well.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. That kind of "deception" has been rampant in women's clothing for decades.

An inexpensive size 12 would be the same measurements as an expensive size 8 or 10. The more you pay, the better you can feel about yourself.

[tularetom]

8. How about jeans?

That's more or less the only pants I wear and there's a noticeable difference in the fit between Levi's and Wrangler's. Both in the waist and inseam. Wrangler's are much less generous in the waist measurement but generally longer for the same listed inseam.

I wear a 36" waist, 38" inseam. But the Levi's fit noticeably looser around the waist and don't have a break at the shoe top. The wrangler's are more snug in the waist and bunch up just a bit at the ankle. I could probably wear a 34 in the Levi's if I didn't mind my eyes bulging out.

[unblock]

9. when you pay for old navy pants, hand them $36 and tell them it's $41.

:rofl:

[TNDemo]

10. My daughter wears a size 0.

She tried on a dress of mine from high school that was a size 5. I struggled and barely got it zipped on her but it was way too tight. So in my day she would have been a size 7.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. The fact that they even call a size "zero" is just ridiculous to the extreme.

[Swamp Rat]

11. I can no longer wear mens pants manufactured nowadays - the crotches are 3-6 inches too long

Not a single pair of pants sold in the USA has fit me in the last 15 years (even low-rise jeans). The crotch on last pair of pants I tried on were half way down my legs to my knees.

I mostly wear pants that are 20 years old or older, if they are still good... which means I wear shorts 99% of the time. If I could, I'd wear womens hip hugger jeans from the 1970s.

Shoes are a problem too, so I mostly wear flip flops and sandals... I have not worn shoes since early march this year, and the shoes I wore are 5 years old.

[jberryhill]

13. LBJ called it "like riding a barbed wire fence"

LBJ orders some pants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3GT9UN7nDo

[Rex]

17. Sandals are my preferred shoe accessory.

I have Fred Flintstone feet (flat and wide) and can find shoes that fit ranging from 11 1/2s to 13s depending on brand. I've always suspected the pants 'lie'.

[Old Troop]

15. Dammit. I'd convinced myself that I was losing weight. Now, if the same

scale applies to condoms, I'm very happy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. I'm suspected the same thing about unusually large shoe sizes for years.

My size 14 EEEE feet sometimes easily fit into size 14 EEEE shoes, and sometimes not at all.