Well this must explain why I've gained about 40 lbs since I was 20 but have only gone up one size.

I have to say that I keep coming back to this thread for reference because the information and discussion here is so good.

As I've lost a little weight recently, I really see the remarkable size creep exactly as described in the way that sizes are analyzed (particularly at Wal-Mart). Although I'm pleased to wear a 7-9 off "some" racks at the moment, and even small shirts, I know that is extremely euphemistic and doesn't really mean anything at all. I'm not small. What's in a size? I mean I have an honest 20 lbs on my short frame to lose to be truly fit. A truly fit person shouldn't be wearing "extra small" that's just silly. A fit person should be wearing "medium" and a thin person "small"... right?

I sure wish that sizes for women would be more standard across manufacturers. I mean my husband can go and find pants anywhere in a particular size and have a reasonable assurance that they fit based on his waist and inseam measurements. Why can't they do that for women? I mean a bust, waist, hip, and inseam measurement should be enough to be able to come up with some sort of a "size."

Instead we focus on sizes the same way we focus on carbs sometimes *LOL*... try to get down as close to zero as we can, regardless of what it really "means."

Yes, a standard! Please! I completely agree. Its so nuts to walk into a store, try something on, have it absolutely hang on me and try the next size down and I can't get into it.

Me at my current weight fitting into 14's makes me laugh. I think the smallest I've been as an adult was size 10's, but that was probably 15 years ago, back then I weighed 125 pounds.

Darn, and I was so proud to wear a size 8-9. But I have a true pear shape. 35-27-40....Looking at those measurements now, I wonder how do I fit into 8/9 slacks? My jeans have to be a 10 or 12 is some stores. So speaking of sizes, why are jeans a tighter fit? And when are they going to make pear shape jeans? They never fit me in the waist!

I know what you mean. It sure feels good to put on a 10 and see it be incredibly baggy. It feels good to put on a 6 and have it actually fit (albeit tightly)! What does it actually mean if it isn't a real 10 or 6 though?

It's actually quite frustrating. I have a pair of size 13 pants I just am getting into (from some teenage shop), but then I have a pair of size 6 pants that fit the same way (from the gap). Womens clothing size is basically a number which serves no purpose other than a potential incentive to buy... as a functional tool to help a shopper locate the proper size, it is meaningless.

Great I can use my fashion design arts diploma here
Yes, clothing grading differs from one end to another.

Due to mass manufacturing of clothing, manufacturers sometimes 'cut edges' when it comes to using textile bolts. So a pair of pants that's graded at sz. 10 can be a sz. 6 or, it can be vise versa a sz. 10 could be marked as a sz. 6.

The world of small, medium, large, extra large is for convience rather then putting a tag of all the mesurements. These garments we're made to fit the a majority of people with ease (ie T-shirts), but it's not as good as using yourself as the decieding factor.

It's hard to say what the 'standard' is for industrial garment sizing because clothing manufacturers may have different standards from another.

Read:
Will Size 8 Dress Soon Be a 12?

There are size conversion charts out there or go look on the ISOhttp://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage

Just google it but I can't gurantee that the charts you'll look at very due to the type of textile, clothing, etc... to suit the purpose of the clothing.

Confused yet Well, there's a lot more I can get into but here is what I know

Everyone has unique proportions. Charts are used to give a manufacture an 'idea' what will fit the majority (target) of consumers possible under one 'umbrellla' size.

It is next to impossible (except if you make or have a personal tailor) that store bought clothing will be perfect. Tags are part of a numerical ordering system and give salespeople an edge to sell clothing to a customer by observation.

Sizing by garments lables alone is deceptive and should not be used be the main indicator of progress BUT using a measuring tape properly and comparing your mesurements to a standard chart for size will give you an idea what RANGE you sit comfortably in.
Also, clothing companies prefer even numbers as oppose to odd numbers for clothing. Only stores use the odd numbers (more sales) but it always looks like
6/7 or 10/11
Some will try on a sz. womens 10 jeans from five or six years ago and then go to a store down the street to try on sz. 10 to find out it doesn't fit, but the sz. 14 does! We change sizes, the industry does too.

My advice, since everyone must be dizzy from reading :

When your clothes don't fit properly, buy new or get them altered.
Altering is a bit expensive BUT they measure you out and can give you the measurments so now you have inches, rather then 'sz?'.

CUT OUT ALL TAG SIZES!! Burn 'em, give them to your spouse, make a quilt, JUST DON'T GET SUCKERED IN. This helped me greatly avoid the 'perfect size trap'.
It sounds dumb, but without the tags, you don't focus on the number but the the way clothing feels and fits, which IMHO is better. Get that monkey off your back and concentrate on the better part of your lifestyle change!

Finally, last but not least: Spandex blend clothing.

The greatest misconception. Spandex blends to me is the hidden enemy along with size tages. It's not all evil, it does make one look good but I would avoid wearing it when I go out to eat or wear spandex blend clothing every day (especially bottoms).
Spandex IMHO should be only for working out and not for everyday wear, except for undergarments. Even polyester pants with the elastic waist band is way better b/c it doesn't stretch everywhere, just at the waist!

A pair of spandex blend jeans/pants can be a womens '30' or 'sz 12', it's true until you put them on. It give allowance up to an inch to possibly 2 or 3.
It's hard to figure out if your lossing or gaining because it stretches.

Companies did this so they can outfit as many people as possible with one pair of jeans under one size (also cost effective for manufactures)

Best clothing to wear is the jeans w/o spandex allowance or pants with a proper zipper and button waist band.

But if your hung-up on the sizing thing, you'll have to use mid to upper labels (boutiques). Usually there closer to the standard sizing b/c there clothing is exclusive and it's based on 'quality' not 'quantity', thus, more expensive. Also, most of there clientel custom order, so the clothing on display are for display and for the sales associate to give the tailor the sz. so they can create custom block from existing blocks...blah blah blah blah..


ex: Lida Baday (very good sizing), Chanel, Armani etc...

So sorry for taking up all this space but fire away on my journal if you have any questions.
Were all working for the same cause and though those little hiccups are the small reminders/challenges, not the end of the world.

When I was 18 years old I weighed 103 pounds and wore a size 7, sometimes a 5 (1968). If people who weigh 160 pounds can fit into a size 7 now then obviously the sizes have increased.

When I was a teenager and swimming slim, I wore a size 9, which was considered average/fit. I've been thinking I might get somewhere in the 11/12 - 13/14 area. I guess this is saying that I should expect a much lower size number to be the same size I used to be. Yuck!

My perception of women when I hear (not seeing) that they are smaller than a 9 is still that they are too thin or they are short/petite. And this also explains when I see women who say they are wearing a 2 or 4 and thought they couldn't possibly be, that they really are.

My sister-in-law was 4'9" tall and weighed around 90 pounds in 1972 when she was 20 . She wore a size 1 and sometimes had to shop in the children's department. I shudder to think where she shops now (she hasn't gained a pound). Infants wear?

Yeah! Has anyone noticed that clothing from the 1940's and mid 1960's (thrift shops and such) it's hard to find a really big range of sizes in vintage wear?
Tells ya' something about the eating habits and how active were then!

I mean, I tried on a vintage size 10 dress and it was loose. I put on my size 12 dress back on it fit!?!

The mythical sz. 0 stills baffles me. 0 mean nothing, so a person is does not exist?!? In the fashion business a size 6 or 8 is the model sample size (kinda).

I have yet to come across a sz. 0 model since there is no such thing as a 0 person!?!
Unhealthy number, yes. It's really a freak number since there are a very, very, very tiny portion of healthy adult people who can wear this sz. Some of those people who wear 0-4 sz. clothing find it appalling that the size can only suggest 'sick and fragile' or misconceptions of 'anorexia and bulimia'.

Same with the word 'petite'.
It only means shorter length in arms, torso, and pant/skirt length not waist size or hip size. Petite sizes can range to a size 20 as well.

My sister wore a size 0-2 and she wanted to be a 6 or 8 (muscle) b/c she was the thinist of her diving team and it made her feel self-conscious in a bathing suit!

Goes to show sz's are not always right.

I wear petites when I can find them and have found them in 26-28 when I was up there at my largest. As you said, it's only an indication of height and limb-length (and waist-length for me). I have short legs and a high waist, even when I'm thin. Unfortunately, plus-size manufacturers don't seem to think short people can get fat so there's a dearth of large-size petites available.

I wanted to make SURE I wore a six when I went shopping recently so I ended up with jeans from three completely different manufacturers. One is rather loose on me, so in that brand maybe I can try a four . The other two fit just fine, but not loose enough to go down another size. So for my ego, I know which brand to get now.

FWIW, my waist at my current weight is 26, hips are 35.

Forgot to mention, I could be wrong here, but the odd numbered sizes are 'juniors' and have narrower hips. I don't have any of my old 5 and 7 jeans from when I was a teen, but I doubt I could get into em because of the more 'hourglass' figure I have now.

This happens in men's clothing as well, but I think its the opposite for high end.

The cheaper the clothes, the larger the 'size'. The more expensive the clothes, the smaller the 'size'.

I bought a pair of Levi's jeans that were size 36. They fit real well. I tried on a pair of Calvin Klein size 36 pants, couldn't even get the button closed on them.

My problem with plus sizes is always the front of pants....the belly area. I carry most of my weight in my hips and thighs....and the waist is always too high and the front too loose!

I know most people carry their weight in their abdominal area....but when you don't, it's almost impossible to find pants you don't have to alter.

On the other hand, "Regulars" fit me now....but when I was a kid I always had to find "Talls". I'm 5'8" tall and when I was a teenager all you could find in tall were old lady pants. LOL