As Average Size Increases, What Do We Adjust?

Fashion / PotD

As Average Size Increases, What Do We Adjust?

November 18, 2016

The average woman is no longer size 14. Do we adjust the size tables or our diets?

I was scrolling through my newsfeed yesterday and there, in the middle of all the political turmoil, was a conversation concerning a study released this past spring about an increase in the size of the average American woman. The article in question was published online in September but referenced research published back in April. The article suggested that the charts used to determine women’s sizing need to be adjusted, that we should reconsider what it means to be “normal” in the US. However, the study cited, as well as a considerable amount of other research suggests that the adjustments need to come from elsewhere, particularly our diets.

We should probably note that the issue isn’t really just related to women. The average sizing for men has increased as well. The difference is that most men either don’t care; the size of their clothing does not contain the emotional element that women experience. Men put on a size 46 sports coat where once a size 42 fit, and most just chuckle at how their body changes as they get older. Women who are accustomed to wearing a size 12 suddenly find they can’t fit into anything smaller than a size 16 and all hell is likely to break loose right there in the middle of the store. Both men and women have increased in size, but each gender regards that change quite differently.

Also, we should take note of the fact that average is a mathematical statement achieved through the comparison of multiple pieces of numerical data. Normal, on the other hand, is merely a perception. There is no science or mathematics behind what constitutes normal. We each decide for ourselves what constitutes normal based on the data we give ourselves, such as the images we see in media, the friends with whom we most frequently associate, and our relationship with family members. To confuse average with normal, which is what the article appears to do, is a grave mistake.

Make no mistake, we have a problem

The actual research on which the article was allegedly based took average body measurements from the most recently published National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys and compared them to ASTM International industry clothing size standards. The source of those average body measurements is important. The National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey used make the following statement:

Despite the public health gains in recent years, more Americans are overweight than ever before. Today, more than half of the adults in the U.S. are overweight, and the number of overweight children and teens has doubled in the past decade. This has led public health experts to look for ways to improve both diet and fitness.

This is far from being new information. In fact, the information used for the study was from a 2010 survey. If anything, the problem has grown significantly. Obesity is defined by most in the medical community as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above. BMI is calculated using height and weight. For example, a 5-foot, 9-inch adult who weighs 203 pounds would have a BMI of 30, thus putting this person into the obese category. The accuracy of using BMI is challenged by many in the fitness community since muscle weighs more than fat (a well-toned body can still have a BMI over 30). However, the majority of Americans can’t use the fitness excuse quite simply because they don’t exercise at all.

What concerns us in this particular conversation is that more women are obese than men. I know, that’s not what we expect, but that’s what the numbers show. A 2012 update to the 2010 study showed that 33.7% of men and 36.5% of women were obese. Prevalence was highest for non-Hispanic black women (56.7%). If you live in the South or the Midwest, you’re practically doomed. No wonder we don’t fit into the same clothes we wore five years ago, or maybe even last year! We have a problem!

Sizing charts don’t help matters

If the real issue here is a health matter, then why are we getting upset with the sizing charts? There really is no benefit to making adjustments so that what is now a size 20 suddenly becomes a size 16. We call that vanity sizing and it only serves to confuse an already impossible to understand the system. The ASTM International charts for women sizing look something like this (warning, the table may not display correctly on all mobile devices):

Catalog misses’ sizes: 5’5″-5’6″ (165–168 cm) tall, average bust, average back
Dimension/size	4	6	8	10	12	14	16	18	20
Closest standard size	10	12	14		16	18		20	22
Est. height	5’4″ (162.5 cm)	5’4″ (162.5 cm)	5’4.5″ (164 cm)	5’5″ (165 cm)	5’4″ (162.5 cm)	5’6.5″ (169 cm)	5’6″ (168 cm)	5’6″ (168 cm)	5’6.5″ (169 cm)
Est. weight lb (kg)	115 (52)	125 (57)	135 (61)	145 (66)	155 (70)	165 (75)	175 (79)	180 (81.5)	195 (88.5)
Bust	34	35	36	37	38.5	40	41.5	43	44.5
Waist	25	26	27	28	29.5	31	32.5	34	35.5
Hip	35.5	36.5	37.5	38.5	40	41.5	43	44.5	46

So, what if your body deviates from those numbers? What if your hips are larger but your bust is smaller? What if your waistline never recovered from having a couple of kids?

What’s important to realize is that this chart is an attempt to provide a standard so that the size 10 you buy in one store generally matches the size 10 one buys in a different store. Only, that doesn’t actually happen. There’s no law that says apparel manufacturers have to follow the standard. Making matters even more confusing, international clothing companies, including favorites such as Burberry, Chanel, and Dior, all use very different European charts when sizing their clothing.

Don’t think that no one is paying attention, either. Back in 2002 ASTM proposed “new labeling standards that include actual body measurements in addition to numerical values.” Even more, ANSI documents state that: “Studies conducted by ASTM in the 1980s indicated overwhelming consumer endorsement for the inclusion of body dimensions on clothing labels.” However, both retailers and fashion labels have fought such labeling for fear that women will shy away from clothing that reveals their actual measurements.

You control the change

If retailers and fashion labels are going to ignore recommended changes to sizing standards, then it is up to each of us to decide how we are going to respond when we no longer fit into the size clothing we think we should fit. Personally, I solve the problem for myself by buying suspenders. My weight fluctuates considerably by season according to the amount of exercise I get. So, my slacks range anywhere from a size 42 to 36, and quite honestly, even the 36 is a little large at the moment. With such fluctuations, I would have to buy new pants every couple of months if I were relying on a belt. Suspenders solves that problem. Sort of.

One has other options as well. Choosing clothing that only comes sized S, M, or L removes a bit o the stigma (or guilt) of not fitting into a size 6. Of course, those garments are not going to be tailored to fit the curves of one’s body, but in case you haven’t noticed, fashions have been getting looser and more flowing for a few seasons now. Most minimalist designs are especially good about leaving room for things such as seasonal weight fluctuations.

Of course, one might actually consider losing weight and exercising, but we both know that’s not always the answer we need. If you are already obese (don’t worry, we won’t tell), then you should consult your doctor before making any radical changes in diet and /or exercise. Many of the fad diets that you’ll find in magazines and online can actually be quite dangerous, especially if one has an undiagnosed health issue. Sure, we’d all like to not be obese, but we would still like to be among the living as well. Don’t let a dress size send you into a self-destructive diet that only makes matters worse.

We end here: changing the sizing charts doesn’t alter the fact that, as a nation, we’re overweight. Until we get our over-sized asses in gear and address that problem appropriately, then no, we’re not going to fit in the size clothing we want. Don’t blame fashion for the problem. Blame that fast food line you keep finding yourself sitting in. Blame the three cases of soda you consume in a week. Blame the holidays. Blame genetics. Blame whatever the problem really is and then fix it.

The power is totally yours.

Current Issues / Fashion / PotD

A Better Size System For Fashion

April 6, 2016

Life is too short, and I’m Italian. I’d much rather eat pasta and drink wine than be a size 0. —Sophia Bush

charles i. letbetter - a better size system for fashion

Size labels won’t fix the problem of weight shaming, but it may change how we think of ourselves

This isn’t a new conversation, but the fact that we are still talking, regularly, about body size and weight shaming is itself a symptom of a larger problem that doesn’t have a simple solution. The human race has, as far back as anyone can tell, judged people by their size. At certain points in our history, being larger was considered more attractive because it was a sign of wealth that one had enough food to eat. Our obsession with being thin did not happen until the twentieth century, but body size has always been an issue.

While doing a bit of research, I came across a very interesting quote:

I felt like a loser. I was unhappy as a child most of the time. We were terribly poor and I hated my size.

Do you know who said that? One of the most unlikely people ever: Don Knotts, the late comedic actor known for his thin, wiry frame. A guy who felt bad about his size.

While the topic is not a new one, and not going to go away because of anything I write here, it has taken on a different direction of late. First, comedienne Amy Schumer is upset because she is in Glamour magazine. I know, that doesn’t sound like a horrible thing, but the problem she has is that she was included in the magazine’s special plus-size edition. Schumer wrote on her Instagram account:

“I think there’s nothing wrong with being plus size. Beautiful healthy women. Plus size is considered size 16 in America. I go between a size 6 and an 8. @glamourmag put me in their plus size only issue without asking or letting me know and it doesn’t feel right to me. Young girls seeing my body type thinking that is plus size? “

Glamour responded:

“First off, we love Amy, and our readers do too — which is why we featured her on the cover of Glamour last year. The cover line on this special edition — which is aimed at women size 12 and up — simply says ‘Women Who Inspire Us,’ since we believe her passionate and vocal message of body positivity IS inspiring, as is the message of the many other women, of all sizes, featured. The edition did not describe her as plus-size. We are sorry if we offended her in any way.”

Still, more than a few people have noted that the very act of producing a special “plus size” issue further marginalizes anyone who doesn’t fit the stereotypical thin shape society expects from women.

Then, almost simultaneously but on a different part of the planet, Model Iskra Lawrence dealt handily with a troll who attempted to fat shame her. Lawrence, who is a bit of a gym rat, didn’t hesitate to post a picture of herself covered in bags of chips (known as crisps across the pond) and letting the troll know she’ll eat what she damn well wants. Scroll on down Ms. Lawrence’s feed and you’ll find some impressive pictures of her in the gym doing squats with more weight on her shoulders than I know I could manage.

Fighting against weight shaming is an eternal battle that, because of how some people respond to their own negative feelings of self-worth, is likely to never go away. Yet, I cannot help but think that we aggravate the problem with how we label both clothes and people. As mentioned in the Schumer/Glamour dustup, anything size 12 and higher is considered “plus” sized, but even women who wear size 4-10 often find themselves being ridiculed for not being a model-worthy size 0 or 2.

While changing the labels won’t make the problem go away, perhaps if we re-think how clothes sizes are named we can, at least, provide both men and women with something that doesn’t immediately demean them when they take an item off the store rack. Why not replace numbered sizes or even the more general small, medium, large, etc. with labels that provide a more general definition without being insulting. Here’s what I’m thinking for new labels:

Casual would be similar to what we now consider a medium size. Hips might be more full, waistlines more forgiving, but within a range appropriate for the average person.
Fit might be a more appropriate label for those who take body tone seriously. Waistlines might be tapered, but not too small, shoulders would be more accommodating, and trouser legs would be full so that those calf and thigh muscles would have room.
Sensible seems to make sense for the next size range up, as this would encompass those whose skeletal structures would never allow them to fit into smaller clothes no matter what they tried. Millions, if not billions, of people fit into this range that is not trim, but still quite healthy with nothing to be ashamed of.
Abundant might be more appropriate for that size range higher than what is currently a size 16. Admittedly, for those who fit into the largest of sizes, nothing really takes away the stigma that comes from being compared to those who are smaller. Yet, by using a label that at least has a less-offensive connotation perhaps we can minimize the hurt to some degree.
Attenuated could work for smaller sizes, which can be just as difficult emotionally as larger sizes. Women, especially, whose metabolism runs high are never going to fit well into Casual-sized clothing. Kat is one of those people who typically has to shop in the Misses or Teen section to have any hope of finding something that fits. And that’s despite consuming healthy portions of my cooking.

These are obviously just suggestions and I don’t expect anyone influential to pay any attention. Getting the entire fashion industry to change anything is extremely slow and difficult. Yet, we need to start somewhere and realize that our labeling conventions are helping to shame millions of people who have no cause to be concerned about the size and shape of their bodies. Size labels seem like a good starting point.

Current Issues / PotD

Unhealthy As An Insult

February 26, 2016

Big food companies have their priorities, which include selling cheap, unhealthy foods at high profits.— Rep. Jared Polis, (D) Colorado

One’s waist size has never determined one’s health, and never will

I came in from one of the children’s more amusing school activities last night to find that Cheryl Tiegs was trending. At first, I was amused. The former supermodel is 78 years old. I remember her first Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover, as well as her second and third. That was a very, very long time ago. Then, I was angry. Ms. Tiegs was trending because she criticised Sports Illustrated for putting plus-size model Ashley Graham on one if its three swimsuit edition covers. Finally, I was disappointed because Ms. Tiegs was using as her basis for criticism on, of all things, Dr. Oz.

Body size and health are huge issues in the United States. We are, after all, the most obese country in the world, despite our so-called fitness craze, the preponderance of gyms in almost every town, and decades of medical advice urging us to take on a more healthy lifestyle. We have all the advantages the world has to offer, and yet we choose to be unhealthy. So, if a major sports-oriented magazine does something to promote an unhealthy lifestyle, then yes, they deserve to be called out for it.

However, putting Ashley Graham on the cover of Sports Illustrated is not unhealthy. Is Ms. Graham at an unhealthy weight? That’s a matter between her and her physician. It is possible to have curves and be healthy. There is no one measure of health that proves accurate or adequate for everyone; not BMI, not other height/weight ratios, and certainly not waist size. If Ms. Graham is active, which she is, does not do anything overtly unhealthy, which she doesn’t, then there’s no good reason for her to not be on the cover of Sports Illustrated or any other magazine.

If anything, it’s attitudes like Ms. Tiegs’ that are unhealthy. Let’s start with this whole Dr. Oz thing and the claim that having a waist size over 36 inches is unhealthy. We do realise that Dr. Oz’s weight loss advice has been thoroughly debunked, right? This is not new news. The doctor has even had to defend his weight-loss advice before Congress and found that, at the very least, there was no scientific evidence to support the majority of his claims, and several were completely WRONG. So, quoting Dr. Oz as an authority immediately puts one in the “misinformed” category.

Furthermore, using the measurements that work for one person may not work on someone else. Even Body Mass Index (BMI), which is the measure most frequently trotted out in these conversations, has been proven to not always be accurate. Good health is sometimes a complicated matter, depending upon what medical challenges one may have. To patently claim that one is not healthy simply because they do not fit within a given measure is inaccurate.

Most importantly, though, Ms. Tieg’s comment amounts to classic body shaming, which is just wrong any way you look at it. Notice Tieg’s backhand compliment that, “Her face is beautiful” (referring to Ms. Graham), which is a classic mean girl move in an attempt to deflect criticism. What Cheryl said is nothing short of insulting and does further harm to the on-going body image battle faced by millions of women, including those whose waist measurements fit within Dr. Oz’s misguided standard. Negative body image issues too often result in eating disorders or other destructive behavior as women of every size struggle to fit what they feel is society’s impossible standards for beauty.

Body shaming as serious consequences and can even result in attempts at suicide. While I will stop short of calling Ms. Tieg’s comments criminal, they are certainly irresponsible. We all want and need to be healthy, but being healthy starts with a good self-image and an attitude that one is valuable as a person regardless of what size they are. There is no room for insults, especially not from a 78-year-old supermodel.

As Average Size Increases, What Do We Adjust?