increasingly plus-size

size is just a number, vanity notwithstanding

Enough ink has been spilled about the obesity epidemic to fill a super-sized soda cup. While the phrase may ring somewhat hollow in the wake of a true epidemiological event, the facts are the facts: worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975, with most developed nations having overweight majorities. U.S. obesity rates have climbed so fast that Colorado’s current rate of 18.7%, which makes it the “thinnest state” in 2022, is higher than that of any state in 1990. While years of research have failed to concretely establish a particular cause, blame is commonly cast on agricultural subsidies which put corn syrup into nearly every packaged food product, as well as increasingly car-oriented and unwalkable communities and a generally sit-at-your-desk-and-do-your-9-to-5 culture. Whatever the cause, the problem has become so entrenched that the 2010s saw the resurgence of the fat acceptance movement, dedicated to denying that it is in fact a problem: fat activists argue that obesity is largely genetic and out of one’s control (famously repeating that 95% of all weight loss attempts fail) and that BMI is a nonsense measure that serves only to perpetuate stigma. They rebuke the idea that individual obesity is in one’s control or a contributor to major health problems, instead attributing these problems to stress and anxiety caused by fatphobia and fat stigma in both society and medicine. Unfortunately for the increasingly overweight residents of the developed world, none of these claims hold up to scientific scrutiny. Let’s take a look at a few common topics:

Myth: Obesity is largely genetic.

Fact: While genomic studies have identified so-called “obesity genes,” their contribution to obesity risk is very small, and hugely outweighed by those of food consumption and physical activity.

Myth: 95% of all diets fail.

Fact: This oft-repeated statistic is based on a single study from 1959, in which 95 out of 100 subjects assigned to diet regained lost weight within a year. Given the high level of commitment and willpower required to improve one’s eating and exercise habits, it’s not surprising that only a small minority of those who try succeed. Taking this as a condemnation of the concept of weight loss, however, seems … questionable. A large majority of attempts to quit smoking also fail — should we conclude that smokers are simply doomed to accept their addiction?

Myth: BMI is a nonsense measure.

Fact: The BMI unit is a simple ratio of height to weight. It’s true that the BMI cutoffs used to determine the “overweight” and “obese” categories are imperfectly chosen, and many researchers suggest using modified cutoffs to account for populations with different ethnic origins. Nevertheless, studies have repeatedly shown a strong correlation between BMI levels and future health risks, including morbidity and death. And if one is using the idea that BMI doesn’t account for muscle mass to conclude that it’s bullshit, chances are they don’t fall into the tiny percentage of absolutely stacked bodybuilders who can truly use this logic to dismiss their BMI (not that they’d even need to argue it: it would be completely obvious from looking at them). 

Myth: The amount it costs to produce clothing in larger sizes is negligible.

Fact: Let’s talk about it.

There are two talking points here: the first is that manufacturers grade clothing around the median (or in this case, medium) of their target customer profile. Size M is supposed to be the middle ground for customers, with the sale of XS, S, M, L, and XL falling into a roughly 1-2-3-2-1 proportion. Manufacturers also buy fabric based on medium sizes, meaning that L is really M+1 and XS is really M-2 when it comes to fabric. Expanding lines beyond XL without a commensurate expansion below XS means that the size medium should technically be reassigned to the true median size — but this topic is already fraught, so we’ll get back to that later. Barring reassignment of sizes, it becomes clear that fabric for plus sizes now costs more because there is no longer a middle ground; plus sizes are “beyond the scope of the expected bell-curve,” so to speak, and pricing varies accordingly. So fabric for plus sizes does cost more because the sizing model makes it so.

The second point here is that increases in the price of fabric barely scratch the surface of additional costs. In most cases, adding a larger range of sizes means starting a new line for the manufacturer, for reasons that are too complicated for the amateurs writing this to fully understand but can be summed up by again referencing the “target customer profile” (hint: plus size customers were not in the target market for that particular line, for whatever reason). When a manufacturer starts a new line, especially for a new type of customer, they have expenditures in the following areas:

Hiring:

1. specialists: 

   • Manufacturers need people who are trained in designing larger clothes, specifically with regard to different styling considerations and range of motion. Pattern-making is basically textile engineering, and it’s difficult to find people with experience, especially considering the scant body of knowledge with regard to plus-size pattern-making.

2. plus-size fit models 

   • Normally, one would just “grade up” (add inches in different areas) from the medium size pattern to create smaller or larger sizes, but you can only do that for about three sizes beyond the original. Plus size fit models test the garments and indicate necessary changes like increasing arm-holes, changing length, and adding or decreasing fabric for better fit. Hiring fit-models is expensive, and even by hiring a plus-size fit model, you are already alienating many customers because the variations between larger bodies are greater than variations between slimmer bodies. People gain weight differently, resulting in descriptions like pear-shaped, apple-shaped, hourglass-shaped, and carrot-shaped; and they may gain more or less in the upper-arms, thighs, stomachs, etc. leading to extensive use of stretchy fabrics and the ubiquitous cold-shoulder top (unlimited arm-hole flexibility!). Any deviation and you may incur the wrath of customers who don’t share the proportions of the fit-model. 

3. marketing staff

   • New customers need advertisements to invest in a new line, and this marketing needs to be on par with the brand’s identity in the marketplace; buyers will have higher expectations of Gap than a start-up (which is why it may be better for plus-size customers to forgo existing brands and encourage start-ups). These staff also need better sensitivity training to handle different expectations between plus-size customers: for example, some customers hate the word fat while others (like fat activists) embrace it and hate when the word fat has a negative connotation.

4. boothing staff: to show off the line at trade shows and convince retailers to buy it

5. sales reps: to sell the new line to retailers and negotiate contracts

Other Considerations:

1. plus-size mannequins

2. more floor space at trade shows

3. new customer infrastructure

4. developing new relationships with retailers who have unknown creditworthiness

5. probably more that an expert would know

This is a non-exhaustive list, and only for the manufacturers (not retailers, who face different costs). One can see why navigating this minefield for an unproven product to service customers who hate them for not already having all of this figured out and threaten to never buy there again (um, why were you buying from there to begin with if they didn’t carry your size?) is not a high priority for manufacturers. 

Many have argued that retailers refuse to sell plus-size clothing for fear of diminishing their brand due to societal fatphobia; while that is possible, corporations are profit-driven as a rule, so if the revenue from plus-size customers was higher than potentially lost revenue from smaller customers offended by the possibility of seeing a larger person wearing the same blouse as them, they would still do it.

Still others have said that there is a self-fulfilling cycle: manufacturers and retailers put less effort into plus-size lines because the customer base is unproven, and customers don’t end up buying these mediocre pieces, so sellers believe that the market doesn’t exist and continue not to devote time, money, and effort into the plus-size market. This is certainly a possibility, but it’s likely an oversimplification. For the extensive reasons mentioned about and the inevitability of big brands conducting extensive market research, one can conclude the following: if it was profitable, they would probably do it and do it at least serviceably, if not perfectly. 

Now, a quick asterisk: remember when we said that customers would riot if brands reassigned the median size due to changing size demographics? Let’s talk about vanity sizing.

Spoiler: it’s almost definitely a myth. Kathleen Fasanella, an experienced and well-known pattern-maker, calls it the “consumer’s favorite imaginary social ill.” While scores of journalists have written about the phenomenon, Fasanella, an economist by study, calls out the complete lack of professional documentation on the subject as a sign of its nonexistence. What many think of as vanity sizing — the apparently intentional scaling down of sizes over time to make larger customers feel better about themselves when they see a smaller size on the tag of their jeans — is just the normalization of sizes based on the new median (medium), especially affecting niche, boutique, and luxury retailers whose target demographic skews a particular direction in terms of sizing (for example, low income correlates strongly with obesity; and for another, the size range for gymnastic unitards is usually different than the size range for wrestling unitards). Manufacturers and retailers size to their customer, and as our bodies evolve, so does sizing. It’s not a manipulation tactic; it’s simply a way to ensure that the largest number of target customers are catered to with available inventory. Yes, it does make it harder to shop at a variety of stores; but completely standardized sizing would come with a whole different set of problems. To quote Fasanella again: “The day that we should only have one size ‘medium’ across all manufacturers is also the day we should only need an identical dose of an identical medicine for an identical medical problem.” Rest assured: size is just a number. 

And now back to the fat acceptance movement: a major debate within the community is whether to consider obesity a disability. Many fat activists, much like many activists in the Deaf community, hate to call obesity a disability (considering it just one part of who they are) but do so because it provides legal and medical accommodations. If one takes the position that obese people are disabled, much of what we have written above may come off as ableist or cruel. While any attempt to define disability is controversial, a common legal standard is that a disability is a significant and long-term reduction in ability to perform everyday tasks. While obesity can certainly significantly affect a person’s ability, the duration of this effect is in a sense up to the affected person, as weight loss is possible at any time. Obesity is thus not inherently a long-term condition, and so we do not consider it a disability for the purposes of this topic. 

It was our intention to write about the pitfalls of plus-size manufacturing, with a necessary introduction to the fat acceptance movement to explain the origin of complaints about the clothing industry being slow to catch up to a new range of customers. No one, regardless of their size or health status, should be relegated to a T-shirt and jeans (or a shapeless sack dress, should they chose to shop elsewhere); but change is best implemented by those with experience, so hopefully the lack of good options for plus-size customers in the current market doesn’t discourage any plus-size fashionistas from entering the industry and creating garments for their body type — and, by extension, for the millions of underserved consumers ready to buy clothes that make them look good and feel good.