If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available.
The real concern I have is how the large majority of westerners are overweight or obese. That's a serious issue way beyond the practicality of buying clothes
The real concern I have is how the large majority of westerners are overweight or obese. That's a serious issue way beyond the practicality of buying clothes
I'm a man often shopping for bike wear in Europe. I'm neither overweight or obese. The article is right that sizing is a complete mess: with my 180cm and 74kg I'm usually mass market size M in tops and L in pants because I just have a big ass (again I'm not fat, I still have a big ass when I'm 70kg during the height of the summer season). But it's often an S in tops. Anyway, in the bike brands sizing, the tops are mostly M to L.
The bike pants? I have already sent back XXL's because I just couldn't put them on. But for some brands, I'm still L, for others it's XL. The measurements don't mean anything, they are completely off quite often. The only half-usable help is customer reviews where people note their measurements and the size that fit them. Also the sizing is not only inconsistent between brands, but also for different items of the same brand.
One thing I don't really understand is the brands perspective. If someone with my measurements is forced to wear XL (and for long pants the legs are often too long as a result), what is left? Will a guy 185 cm high weighting 90kg, which is not uncommon, be forced to wear an XXXL (if they make this size, which they usually don't)? Do they look at this and think it's good sizing nomenclature?
I've found myself not even considering brands where I've found inconsistent sizing, but going back again and again to ones I can reliably pick a size and know it'll fit, no returns.
I have seen this explanation a lot and frankly I doubt that very much (The XXL I had to return was a Belgian brand). I think it's not the body size difference in regional market but rather the Italian market for example may be used to different size designations. But then they sell to other markets too, so they should sort this thing out. I simply can't buy anything from Castelli when the reviews say 'buy 2 or 3 sizes larger than the measurements say'.
> but going back again and again to ones I can reliably pick a size and know it'll fit
I wish those existed for my garments. Sizing is inconsistent between Assos Equipe RS and Mille GT lines, between newer and older Isadore pants, between newer and older Endura pants...
So I have almost the opposite problem from you, where an M is usually reasonable for me on the bottom, but _comically_ tight on top. Even an L is usually way too tight through the chest and biceps for me, but now not long enough in the arms.
I just live with it, because whatever, I don't mind the top being a little tight, but it is frustrating.
This doesn't tell the whole story either. In Europe, for example, plenty of women are within the "healthy" BMI range, for example, but their muscle- and fat-distribution is such that various clothes made for normal weight do not fit.
For example, for some women, finding pants which are both large enough at the hips, and thin enough at the waist, is a nightmare. You can be well into the bottom range of healthy weight, like closer to underweight, and still have clothes for normal weights be WAY too tight, because of fat and muscle distribution and build.
The article itself gives numerous reasons why this is not true:
* Patterns are scaled up and down from a single original pattern. However actual bodies do not follow simple scaling. As a result, variation in body size will always result in clothes that fit poorly.
* There is not a universal set of body proportions. The article shows a categorization system with 9 buckets. I suspect women's body's simply have a wider range of shapes than men's leading some men (possibly including you?) to discount this.
* Some brands literally don't stock even the median adult women's size!