Fitlogic’s answer to pant sizing
March 18th, 2008An article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports how Dallas product designer and marketer, Cricket Lee, attempts to standardize women’s clothing sizes and fits in the US. She has created a sizing system called Fitlogic, which sets a universal standard for sizing women’s clothes based on measurements and body types. The Fitlogic system categorizes women into three shapes:
- Thick waist and thin hips (Straight)
- Curvy but proportional (Curvy)
- Thin waist and round bottom (Round)
You can find your fitlogic fit by answering a few simple questions. I entered my measurements and received the following response:
“The Fitlogic Fitfinder cannot find a size meeting the measurements you have entered. We understand how important the proper fit is and how difficult measuring yourself can often be. Please take a moment to double-check your entries and proceed with the Fitlogic Fitfinder once more”.
I can assure you that I measured myself properly and entered the data correctly. Perhaps I’m in the 10% minority (the article does say that the algorithm currently works for 90% of women), but the reality is that women’s bodies defy standardization. If you struggle to find pants that fit, the best remedy is to get as close as possible and then do alterations to perfect the fit.
Watch this video to get a simple explanation of the Fitlogic system.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I agree with you. I tried the Fitlogic Fitfinder and it told me I was a 6/3. Nope. I was wearing size 2, until this past year when some size 4s crept into my closet! I’m working to get back into the 2s, but no way could I wear a 6. I’m not a pear, either. More proportional than a pear.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I’m a 12.1, apparently, even though I just got down to a 14 (I was barely fitting into 16s in January), and consider myself more of an apple or hourglass shape. Oh well. At least some in the industry are at least trying to bring some level of standardization to our clothing.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Angie, I got the same response that you got. I am 5′0″ 107 lbs measurements 33-25/26-33.
I would be very interested in more information about alterations. I have searched the web and can’t find much detail. What I’m looking for is guidance on how to know while shopping which garments can be easily altered, and which cannot be.
For example often I will find myself vacillating between two sizes - one size is just a little tight here and there, but fits perfectly in the vertical proportions. I have read that tailors can take a garment in easily, but taking it out is more of a challenge, so always go up in size. But then when I try on the next size up, it’s not only too big all over everywhere, but the vertical proportions are all wrong! Seems to me it would need massive altering and be too cost prohibitiive?
So I would love an article with more detail and specific examples!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Interesting ladies. I find this VERY interesting. I am skeptical with regards to any form of size standardization. I have worked with real bodies, clothing and patterns in different countries for too long to feel that there is a solution. Women are curvy. Even skinny women are curvy compared to men, because of the female buttocks, bust and waistline. It’s these curves that cause multiple variation.
Good for you snickerdoodle! Here is a posting on alterations Jen. If you give me specific alteration questions, I can answer them for you.
http://www.youlookfab.com/2007.....rfect-fit/
March 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I also defy explanation. To pretend that there are 3 body types in the universe is ridiculous. The good thing about a lack of standardization is that there is something for everyone. If one store, brand, or label doesn’t seem to work, just find another one. If things were standardized, even if 90% of the population fit into one of these “types”, leaving out 10% of all women is definitely not the answer.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Jen, It is easier to have clothing taken in than let out. There might not be enough excess fabric in the seaming to let it out, and you run the risk of having ghost seam lines where the old seam was.
If you find you are inbetween sizes and it affects the length…look for the same article in short or petite. You may still need to alter the waist or hips, but you wont need to alter the length.
I will ask my mother to list in order the alterations from difficult to easiest. I’ll get back to you on this.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
This is precisely my point Maya and thanks for asking your Mum Nicole.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am
It didn’t work for me either, which didn’t surprise me since I am nowhere near any of those body types. I’m an inverted triangle with a waist, which basically means altering everything. Anything that fits my broad shoulders is too big for my smallish waist. I agree with some of the previous comments; if we standardize women’s clothing it will only fit some people and there will be nothing left for the minority. As much as I hate trying on everything, at least I know that there must be something out there that will fit me. All I have to do is find it.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
My fitlogic size is a 0, 3. Yes, I am a pretty pear, but I am NOT a size 0. Oh, and they don’t do petites yet. I think Angie, Sarah, Jen, and Maya are too slim for fitlogic. It clearly doesn’t work for more than 10% of the women in this survey! Well, it made for interesting conversation.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I can’t even begin to think of all the body types this system is missing.
Did anyone else see the video? I love i when they ask the woman something like “when was the last time you were a size 6?” What blatant vanity sizing! No wonder poor Jen and Sarah (and even me for that matter) don’t fit into the system. I had to bump my hips up 2 inches to get to a size 0. Ridiculous.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
For me it also says 0,3. I find the shape 3 to be a really accurate description of my shape, but the size is quite a bit off. I have 25″ waist and 37″ hips and need size 2 in mainstream stores like JCrew or 4 in designers like Theory ( amd 6 in H&M !) to fit my hips and in most cases have to take the waist of the pants significantly in.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I wear a size 6 - 8 and this program has me at a 2.3 petite. I wish I was a size 2!
March 19th, 2008 at 6:36 am
I agree that trying to force everyone into a system is silly. On the other hand I really hate it when the 12 from one shop is pretty much equivalent to the 10 in another or a 14 in a third. I’d like it if there were a bit more cohesiveness in sizing (although obviously within that there should be variation).
March 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I was also uncategorizable. I find that startling, especially because lately I have been able to find pants that fit me well — the “curvy fit” at the Gap, and at a few other places, fits my proportions exactly. Maybe I screwed up the thigh measurement.