UKC

I'm 5'7", 38" chest, 31/32" waist which means i've always been a Medium in everything ive bought in the past. Recently though, i found ive had to switch to Small - this has been the case equally in M&S or outdoor stuff.

Last week i bought a Montane Dyno jacket and the Medium was like a bin bag. Ive had loads of their stuff in the past but probably all bought eight or more years ago and back then a Medium would have been perfect.

That’s funny because I’m almost exactly your measurements and would go small on almost everything personally. Sometimes medium for jackets when it’s an over ropes kind of situation. 

If you think that is bad, try buying road cycling clothing which is designed for near death anorexics. It is the other way around anyone of normal slim build is looking at L and XL.

Yes. I’m now small despite being the same size as you, the same size I’ve always been and yet ‘overweight’ according to BMI. 

Its all nonsense. 

I have bought two pairs of cords from M&S and a pair of jeans from a jeans shop in the last year and all of them are sized 32 waist but while they fit OK round the hips, the waist is not waisted, in other words they continue straight up with no proper waist to sit on top of your hips. Wearing my belt on the normal hole brings the waists in with spare material rucked up. I can only conclude that men's trousers are now cut for blokes with big bellies.

I can inform you that isn't true!

Tis true. I heard on the radio that waist sizing for most jeans, in order to flatter the fat wearer, is based on a hypothetical (and slim) waist measurement if indeed you actually wore jeans up on the waist (Simon Cowell style). Since most folk wear jeans on the hip the actual circumference is bigger than the stated waist size. The belly can then flop over the top...

If you want to become a large go and shop at decathlon...

This sort of thing has been going on with women's clothing sizing for years - though at least with a lot of men's clothing, sizing seems to be based more on logic rather than arbitrary numbers (8, 10, 12, etc).

I did have a disconcerting moment recently with a T-shirt from a new brand calling themselves Ascendancy Apparel. I'm a size 14 (not particularly tubby but tall with broad shoulders etc), which in most brands equates to a women's Large, but they'd decided that a Large was size 10 so now I'm sporting my XXL T-shirt that fits me like a size L fitted T-shirt normally would. I make a lot of clothes, where it's obviously easier to make things that actually fit, but again, discrepancies between pattern brands (and countries) mean that if you're hung up on being a 'Medium' or a 'size 12', it could all be a bit troubling.

I can confirm, that size creep is a thing, although in my case it's in the opposite direction, used to be Medium, now X-Large.

Something is going on. I recently bought some Paramo base layers. I get medium normally as am 5ft 7, 36 inch chest, waist 34 inch. In this instance following the sizing I was small at the top and large at the leg. I have the medium Paramo boxers; to replace I have to get the large. I am still he same measurement. I have read it is something to do with catering for international markets.

I'm 6'1" with a 32" waist, I usually have to go for large bibshorts so that I don't get strangled by the bib straps but still find the blood getting cut off by the  thigh grippers,  have they modeled their sizing on muscle-less runners?

Contrasting with that, I received a muddyfox cycling jersery from sports direct at christmas, the medium barely fits across my shoulders yet the waist is so voluminous you could fit 2 of me in it.

that's true. Just before Christmas, I bought a pair of bibshort by the Italian company, La Passione Cycling in a Medium and wore it for an eight mile ride a few weeks ago. It felt okayish when I put it on, but by then of the ride I was in agony, it dug into every crevice imaginable!

If you are built as your name suggests then perhaps lycra isn't for you - the MAMIL look isn't for everyone

5 10 and 85kgs when at peak... cycle clothing is joke for me, but then my optimum sporting distance sits somewhere between 200 and 400m... but short duration events are so boring. 

I've found that sportful and castelli suit me best.. I have a few items that are relegated by mtb in the forest though or have been home modified. So hard to tell until you have worn them for a few miles just how clothing really feel. 

Arm warmers that fit are my next challenge. 

You wear your trousers up to your waist? As in belly button height?

This seems to be a growing trend, sizing clothes to boost the egos of fat people.

My waist measures 32.5" with the tape pulled tight. For years I noticed 32" trousers were getting baggier round the waist, but I certainly wasn't getting thinner. I now have to buy 30" waist, and even then I need a belt.

It's not just trousers. I bought a DMM Renegade harness. The medium is supposed to go down to 32" waist, but was too loose for me. I had to buy a small.

Vanity Sizing:

https://www.google.no/search?q=vanity+sizing&oq=vanity+sizing&aqs=c...

You think you've got problems?

I'm 6'2", 41" chest, 30" waist and my arms are 24" armpit to wrist.

Getting stuff to fit is a nightmare irrespective of what the label says

Chunky fell runner thighs and an actual waist + skinny jeans trend = shopping nightmare. The horror. Sister's jeans scenario if they fit the waist or stupid baggy belt loop area to accommodate 'powerfully built' quads.

I've often thought in recent years that there is the demand for an outlet that caters for skinny people, Undesize R us sort of thing.

i am 5'8" and weigh 58kgs with a 28" waist. It's a waste of time even going to most shops like m&s because they don't stock stuff my size because there is no demand.

When I do find something that fits me I buy 2 pairs.

Should be called "Insize"

I'm not far off those measurements and my recommendation would be to go to Indonesia! I was working there for a while a few years ago and could go into any department store and pick things off the peg that fit me like a glove. Every style, every colour.

Admittedly it isn't the most cost-effective of suggestions!

Cyclists have the same problem of well-developed glutes and quads compared with the standard consumer. The only trousers, which fit me comfortably nowadays are my formal work trousers, which have a 32" waist and are cut generously round the hips and thighs for comfortable sitting. Jeans are too loose round the waist but too tight in the bum and thighs.

I find a real problem with Craghoppers stuff - I like their winter trousers in particular but I have to go to a larger waist size just to get enough freedom of movement round the hips and thighs as they seem to be not to generous.

Years ago I bought some breeks in Coniston, same brand and for the same reason they had split by the time I'd got  a mile up the road to the Old Man, even though the waist was right

And why do so many trousers now sit so stupidly low as if I wanted to have flesh on display as per the high street?