Lifestyle tips

I did a speech on this in community college once. In it, I discussed how clothing is mis-sized, particularly men's clothing. From my research I found that men's pants may indicate their size by their measurements (e.g. "34" means 34 inches), but they on average are 1.5 to 2 inches larger than they say. For women's clothing, it's well known that the numbered size model is inconsistent between brands. And considering that clothing with non-arbitrary size labeling is just as inaccurate, I can confidently say this is a widespread issue, regardless of size in a way.

I have NO shorts that fit from last year.

Just today I bought Levi's 34 jean shorts that fit perfectly, and along the way, picked up Levi's 34 utility shorts... which are way too small. What gives? Same brand, same store, at least 2 inches difference. It's messed up.

On a more fun note, my M sized gym shorts were too tight and leaving a mark. I decided, for fun, to jump up and buy XLs aaaaaand, they fit! LOL!

Yea sizing in clothes is definitely different. But for Men's pants try measuring your belly, then your waist, you will be wearing say a 36" waist pant in my case or more 38" but my waist typically measures at least 2+ inches more not to mention the belly measurement being way bigger...but obviously most of us wear our pants way lower with our belly out.

So my wife fits into different brand slacks in 10 and some in 8's when she clearly by charts should be in a 12 and some 14's based on charts.....granted she wears her clothing much tighter....not to mention her jeans which are stretchy but look like she spray pints them on ...and it takes her 10 minutes to get them on....especially when she has been over indulging for a few weeks. Not to mention the strain on her slacks is not only on the button but mainly that zipper because of the cutest lower belly.

So while typing this it got me thinking....so I measured around the biggest part of my gut and it was 49".....but I fit into a 38"....probably not any 36"'s anymore after quarantine.

I totally get you, and I usually try stuff on just in case. In this case today, same brand, same store, same size, and I wear them all in the same spot, just under the belly. LOL! It would make sense that they'd fit!

They weren't expensive, and a friend's son is already getting them. I'm not buying a lot, who knows what I'll need next summer??

All clothes makers should have a meeting and strive for consistency!

I would agree that clothing manufacturers are hopeless in getting sizing right and consistent. Also many online outlets are bad at giving the actual measurements of clothes they are selling.
Like others on here, I have found that men's trousers are usually (but not always) 2" larger in the waist than the marked size. What particularly annoys me is the lack of "rise" measurements. I wear my trousers up around my belly rather than under it and the rise measurement is critical to avoid them falling down. I know braces (suspenders) would help hold them up but they leave a gap above my belly, which I don't like.

Google "vanity sizing"... the inconsistency isnt by accident.

So true!!! Most people don't realize that!

Being a man, I may have an easier time, though it's not entirely easy.

I think women might just have a harder time, since it appears there's more variance between sizing tables/charts and their corresponding measurements.

It's not fair or reasonable, but just what I've noticed. For example, a size 20 at NY & Co. is a 14 at Torrid for bottoms (38" waist, 47" butt) whereas a size 20 at NY & Co. is a 16 at Torrid (44-46" boobs), though in both cases it's still 2XL/1X.

It's even worse if some brands aren't even consistent with their own sizing charts.

For men's bottoms at least, there seems to be consistency. Advertised waist size + 2" = real waste size, which is at least consistent. Except for Wrangler brand jeans, where advertised really does seem to be what it really is.

S, M, L, XL also seems consistent regarding chest or waist measurement. L always seems to be 36-38" waist, and a 42-44" chest, for instance.

Inseam, outseam, or sleeve length measurement always seems to be whatever the numbers say, at least.

Perhaps there should be a law that says all mass produced (not bespoke) clothing on or after I don't know, December 1st, 2020 and sold in the U.S. needs to follow a consistent sizing chart, determined by the NIST Office of Weights & Measures. Same for the equivalent offices in the UK, EU, and so on.

Alternatively, if inch measurements are used rather than size numbers, every measurement much be consistent even for waist.

And why not? It's the same office that carries the official definition of what an inch, or a pound is.