Buying clothes online and getting the size right can be a lottery, especially due to the difference in measurements between brands, which means that the same size can be 10 centimeters larger or smaller depending on where it is purchased. This dance of carvings is almost endemic. Now this is pointed out with data by the Organization of Consumers and Users (OCU), which together with the Institute of Biomechanics of Valencia have carried out a comparative study with 13 reference clothing companies, confirming the important differences between brands in the same size. Based on the results, they ask for clear reference body measurements and a common sizing system. A request that experts in eating disorders (ED) have long demanded because they warn that this imbalance affects body dissatisfaction and can be the gateway to an ED.
The OCU study compares the actual measurements of four items of clothing (men's and women's t-shirts and jeans) from 13 well-known clothing brands and reveals differences of up to 26% for the same size. The size chosen to make the comparison was L. In women it gave more than 11 cm of difference in the waist of a straight-cut, high-rise jean. The difference, to a greater or lesser extent, occurs in all measurements, the report warns: up to 25% (12 cm) difference in the width of size L cotton women's T-shirts; up to 25% (13 cm) on men's regular-fit size L shirts and up to 10% (3.5 cm) on men's size L straight-fit jeans.
The organization regrets that the difference varies significantly depending on the brand that markets it. A disparity that is accompanied by terms such as Slim, Relaxed or Oversized that “are not always easy to interpret,” the report argues. The document also confirms that half of the main clothing sales websites do not offer “minimally acceptable” information about the measurements and sizing of their garments.
“The current system is not consistent with the anthropometric measurements that exist in the population,” denounces Sara Bujalance, director of the Association against Anorèxia i la Bulimia (ACAB). If in shoes the system is more “stable” and there are few variations, for example, in size 38, in the world of textile fashion this becomes much more difficult, details the psychologist. So the current size system can contribute to “body dissatisfaction”, something that different studies already point out, he warns. “You can go shopping, have a body that is normal and ordinary from a biological point of view and not find a size,” Bujalance laments. Thus, given the differences found in the OCU study, it is quite common for a buyer to end up needing a larger size than she initially thought she had. And many times, the experience of being left out of the size system itself or seeing that you are wearing a size larger than what you consider or what is “socially considered desirable,” produces “body dissatisfaction,” the psychologist insists.
Bujalance points out that it is relatively common, for example, that shopping or trying on clothes can act as “a precipitant for a diet to try to lose weight.” Because thinking that you are wearing an M and ending up having to buy an L when the body remains the same can throw the buyer off. This means that the person in question can change the perception they have about their body because socially the L is not “as well considered as an M,” he laments. Warn that these situations can cause the client to think, for example, “I'd better lose weight to get into an M, because that way I'll feel better.” The danger of it being a precipitant of risk behaviors affects all ages, although Bujlance recalls that women between 12 and 25 years old are more vulnerable, due to their immaturity, to developing an eating disorder. Similarly, older women with a history of an eating disorder are also at greater risk.
For the teacher and researcher at BAU University Center for Arts and Design, Cristina Real, a unified sizing system would reduce the “social indignation” at the wide difference in sizes in the market and would allow a body to be associated with a size with the “certainty” that it fits. But consider that unifying the sizes does not completely solve the existing controversies. The researcher points out that two garments cut with the same pattern can vary in size depending on the fabric or dyes used and considers that morphological differences between countries make a unification of sizes impossible. That is why he believes that own systems are needed that address specific characteristics.
The expert also regrets that the size systems have been created for a “determined and ideal body model” and the person who deviates from that model will have a difficult time fitting in. On the other hand, he explains, the variability of bodies causes brands to focus their sizing on those more “stable” bodies. Thus, “the XL works like an enlarged M,” he points out. That is why he considers that a unified system could alleviate part of the limitations, but it does not completely resolve a “deeper reflection.” Because Real defends that sizing systems should be “pivoting.” And he considers that pattern-making should be worked on “from the individual body and not from an industrial size system.”
The OCU report calls for a more homogeneous size system. Something that Bujalance also asks for. Although the psychologist is satisfied that “it was consistent with the anthropometric measurements that are on the street.” In this sense, the expert regrets that today clothes do not fit the body but it is the body that must fit the clothes.
OCU criticizes the “lack of coherence” of the fashion industry and demands changes that facilitate the choice of clothing and also reduce the environmental impact generated by the return of garments that do not fit the consumer's measurements, since it is common that, faced with this dance of sizes, the buyer orders different sizes to get it right and ends up returning those that do not fit.
The psychologist remembers that all people, but especially women, live in “a psychosocial environment in which aesthetic pressure predominates.” That is why Bujalance believes that the improvement of the size system has to be accompanied by other measures that eliminate aesthetic pressure, “really promoting respect for body diversity.” In this sense, precisely, one of the aspects that the report denounces is the still scarce existence of large sizes integrated into the main collection. Real regrets that “non-normative” bodies do not find representation in the clothing that the current market offers. “The particular has no place and is treated as an error or an exception,” he points out. And that is the reason, he says, why many consumers blame themselves for clothes that do not fit them well.
Bujalance explains that in the personal history of people who end up developing an eating disorder, negative experiences with clothing are “frequent.” And that, as part of the treatment of an eating disorder, it is common that for a time, and depending on the case, they do not know exactly what weight they are, but also what size they wear.
The fashion industry has grown by leaps and bounds towards Fast fashion, which markets clothing quickly and cheaply and which mostly has its way of disseminating and purchasing online. Bujalance laments that this model tries to “fit all the diversity of bodies into the same garment, and that is conceptually impossible.” He also denounces that “taking into account the body's own anatomy, it can be difficult from an aesthetic point of view.” Bujalance regrets that in an advertising campaign you can see low-cut pants on a model, but you have to think that models usually have very thin bodies “with a very low fat percentage” and that the same garment is not going to look the same on other people. In addition, the image may be artificially retouched.
The psychologist considers it essential to “protect” young girls from aesthetic pressure, in addition to “encouraging a critical spirit in the world of fashion, beauty, the size system and advertising.” All of this with the aim that they can build an identity and a life “that goes far beyond the physical appearance.”
