'DUH'

They found that 41 percent of the women struggled to find well-fitting clothing and had an hourglass, pear or cylinder body type.

What body types did the other 59% have?

Men's clothing has been like this since forever.

Pants: Waist and inseam

Shirts: Collar and sleeve

Coats: Chest circumference and back length

This also eliminates the weirdness like sizing being different among manufacturers, or size creep (sizes have gotten bigger over time, apparently to please consumers). Centimeters don't lie, or change.

Aside from that, stopping the advertising with those anorexic skeletons is a very good thing indeed.

Measure me in inches or centimeters, I don't mind, just make it something universal and independently verifiable (like with a tape measure!)

On the original NYT page about the sizing issue, the Google advertisements were about ... wait for it ... weight loss. "Lose that belly fat!"

I am not going to put down models...By this I mean..calling them "anorexic stick people" is the same as calling someone a "fat bitch", in spite of the perverse sort of pride that comes in this culture with being "too thin".

.... I think the industry they support couldn't be more vapid and I make clothes for a living....but I am tired of insulting people regarding their looks in general. At this point, you would think we would all be rather over that.

But man...being able to buy clothing by MEASUREMENT..like a man...fabulous....rational...an

d long, long overdue. yay!

In high school, I used to buy mens pants because it was just easier, they tended to fit better too! Hopefully this new trend in Spain will sell well and encourage other designers and clothiers to follow suit.

Lynx, glad you raised that question. They actually found that the majority of Spanish women fit into one of those three body type categories. My wording confused that info, though, so I've tweaked the wording. Thanks!

Will all resect, your repeated claims that being "too thin" is unhealthy don't stand up; it's bad science. . Salon columns have claimed (as I recall) that anyone with a BMI of below 18.5 is "unhealthy" and "an example of bad health of young" women. In fact, a large number of professional, women athletes are thus in poor health and poor examples, according to your standards, including tennis star Maria Sharapova, Olympic gold medalist Amanda Beard, professional golfer Michelle Wie --- all of whom have BMIs that are LOWER than supermodel Gisele Bundchen's.

IMHO: http://www.fawcette.net/2007/12/why-tennis-shar.html

Medical researchers actually claim that for people to achieve their maximum potential lifespan approaching 130 years, the key, in fact the only positive factor they can confirm, is to consume 30% fewer calories than is normally recommended and primarily eat salads until you're skin and bones -- sort of like a model .

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1809903&affil=kgo

Which makes for a problem that the men's style sizing just can't solve. The vast majority of men are 'apples'- they carry excess weight in their bellies. Women vary a lot more in terms of excess fat distribution and other fundamental shapes. There are many apples, but also a high percentage of pears- people who carry their excess fat in their legs and hips.

Most women's clothing seems to be deisgned for apple-shaped people. I'm pear-shaped below the rib cage, which means that if I try on pants designed for the apple-shaped, I have a huge gap at the waist in order to find pants that fit properly through my legs. (and a lot of time spent biking when I was a triathlete don't help in terms of leg fit either)

End result- the only place I end up buying pants these days is the Banana Republic/Gap/Old Navy family of stores because they're surprisingly good at meeting the needs of women with different kinds of body shapes.

I am sure it is the libertarian freak within me saying this, but it is pretty striking that "evil" private fashion types enforce their conceptions of beauty by inviting people to their fashion shows and making magazines available for purchase, while government enforce their ideas with coercive bans on certain models.

Does anyone not see that the government actions are a little more intrusive and restrictive on personal choice?

Does that matter at all? Is the potential unfairness of the gov't action a concern?

It's great that sizing will be so much easier! I hate having to guess what will fit where and try on three things to figure out what a manufacturer means by those numbers.

I'd point out that many female athletes (I don't know the particulars of the ones mentioned) are so low in bodyfat that they don't menstruate; their own body is saying they're too thin for bearing children. That strikes me as sub-optimal.

And starvation has been studied in humans, it's not good for them. Healthy young men who consumed only 1600 calories a day (pretty typical for diet recommendations, certainly more than many models consume) experienced depression and serious psycological side effects, one study participant chopped off three fingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

A few more years of life (if it works in humans at all, not just rodents) which is full of depression and fixated on food rather than interpersonal interaction isn't worthh it.

Now some women may have body types that are naturally extremely thin, but from my reading most models are that thin because they are not eating a varied and nutritious diet. Lettuce and cigarettes more like.

Neil, I view this much in the same way I view warnings on cigarette packs.

It's a health issue. You don't think government should intervene?

Is it a health issue?

Do we really have a demonstrated causal connection between runway models and rates of eating disorders?

I think the science is soft on this.

I think the better comparison is between the model ban and banning smoking in every public arena.

I well understand that most people support all smoking bans with unmitigated enthusiasm.

My question is whether there is the same consensus on the dangerousness of skinny models as there is for smoking.

Are skinny models getting railroaded because there are so few of them and banning them is a cheap way to "tackle" the dismal and stubborn fact that some young women are suffering from severe eating disorders.