Trousers

[Wycombewheeler]

I'm sure this can't only be me. I'm not exactly at the racing snake end of the spectrum.

I find that trousers that fit around the waist are way too tight on the thighs and trousers with enough room for the legs are too lose around the waist.

Anyone know where to get trousers that aren't for people with stick legs?

[Kim]

No, they're unobtanium, even in that last bastion of fashion-resistant clothing, the outdoor shop.  I have to use a belt.

[rogerzilla]

Levi 501s are expensive and rather poor quality these days byt they are the only jeans that go over my thighs with the correct waist size.

[Kim]

Cycling-specific clothing isn't immune to this problem either.  I'm glaring at you, Endura.

[hellymedic]

I have ranted and grumbled about this problem several times in the past on this forum.
Problem is that British folk have acquired HUGE amounts of visceral fat over the last couple of decades and clothing manufacturers have adjusted their products to fit people who are fatter and or flabbier. Vanity sizing is another factor.
David and I both have this problem.
An M&S Size 14 fitted a 26" waist in 1976 but now fits at least 31".

David's 32"waist trousers from 20 years ago fit well.
Modern ones are too tight on the bum/thigh if they fit at the waist.

Elsewhere, I complained I wanted David's breeks to accommodate sitting and manhood.

I am a DEMANDING woman!

[Cudzoziemiec]

I haven't noticed the thigh problem because I guess I'm averagely flabby and muscle-less despite cycling. But waists, yeah. Twenty odd years ago, when I was reasonably slim, I wore 32" trousers. Maybe occasionally 30" but usually, AFAIR, 32". Now 30" is loose on me. If it weren't for my "visceral fat" I'd have to wear stupid (on me) teenage styles!

[hellymedic]

I haven't noticed the thigh problem because I guess I'm averagely flabby and muscle-less despite cycling. But waists, yeah. Twenty odd years ago, when I was reasonably slim, I wore 32" trousers. Maybe occasionally 30" but usually, AFAIR, 32". Now 30" is loose on me. If it weren't for my "visceral fat" I'd have to wear stupid (on me) teenage styles!

If 30" is too loose and you try 28s, you'll find they have no ballroom, thigh room or sitting space.
If you find them.
And they'd still be stupid teenage styles...

[hellymedic]

Both David and I have partaken of MOAR CAEK since this thread started some three years ago.
It's like déjà vu all over again...
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=77325.0

[Cudzoziemiec]

I haven't noticed the thigh problem because I guess I'm averagely flabby and muscle-less despite cycling. But waists, yeah. Twenty odd years ago, when I was reasonably slim, I wore 32" trousers. Maybe occasionally 30" but usually, AFAIR, 32". Now 30" is loose on me. If it weren't for my "visceral fat" I'd have to wear stupid (on me) teenage styles!

If 30" is too loose and you try 28s, you'll find they have no ballroom, thigh room or sitting space.
If you find them.
And they'd still be stupid teenage styles...

That's okay, I only do disco.
That is what you meant?

[hellymedic]

Of course! 

[mrcharly-YHT]

I'm currently wearing Next regular fit 'chinos'. They look like skinny fit trousers on me, but at least they do fit. They aren't real chinos, 'cause the fabric is stretchy. All to the good.

[Ben T]

I have this problem with jeans and can't wear any jeans at all for this reason, they just don't work.
I find some start off ok but after a few washes the waist just gets baggy.
Stretch waist trousers seem to be better. I've got some gap ones which aren't too bad.

[ian]

They sort of fit me, tight around the thighs and buttville, but that seems to be the style these days so I might as well show off my skinny bits as fashion intends*. My main gripe is that 28/30 inch waist trousers seem to presume the wearer will be a beanpole, which I'm not. Since the demise of BHS, the only place that does small waisted trousers with a short leg is M&S and generally you have to order them special. So I just buy a zillion pairs each time. It's shortism, I tell you. Yeah, yeah, go and hang out in the kids section. And wait for the police to turn up.

*my other main gripe is that you can't cycle in them and I'm running out of trousers to cycle in.

[fimm]

You might try Next. Mr Fimm is 5'5" with a 28"-30" waist and he rates them for actually selling trousers he can wear. And his thighs are fairly muscular (he walked in to a group of our friends one time wearing running tights and one of them burst out "My God, will you look at those thigh muscles!" which got her a lot of friendly abuse for looking at men's legs...)

[Cunobelin]

Not just trousers either.....

I am finding this with shirts and jackets

I have broad shoulders and need an XXL

Yet looking at the Rohan catalogue, most of the items I would have bought now only do XL, in which case reaching forward without pulling the shirt / jacket uncomfortably tight across the shoulders becomes impossible

Others are also following the trend

[SteveC]

I was measured the other weekend by a professional seamstress (not the Terry Pratchet kind!) and she declared my waist to have a circumference of 35 IMPERIAL inches.
So why do my M&S 34 inch trousers feel as if they are falling off all the time. They won't quite go over my hips but...

[rogerzilla]

"Slim fit" shirts are designed for people with very narrow shoulders.  No-one makes off the peg shirts that fit round bigger shoulders while not being baggy round the middle.

Basically, people are getting flabbier and less muscular and the cut of clothes reflects that.

[hellymedic]

I was measured the other weekend by a professional seamstress (not the Terry Pratchet kind!) and she declared my waist to have a circumference of 35 IMPERIAL inches.
So why do my M&S 34 inch trousers feel as if they are falling off all the time. They won't quite go over my hips but...

Vanity f***ing sizing.
That is all.

My brother-in-law had a similar experience when he was measured by a professional tailor.
He was no longer the size he had been buying in M&S, which was a size he had bought for decades. Middle-aged spread had added to his weight and his girth but not to his M&S size.

I am beginning to wonder if this vanity sizing is fuelling the obesity epidemic. Being unable to fit clothing in one's usual size would signal a nudge to lose weight.

It doesn't any more.

[ian]

You might try Next. Mr Fimm is 5'5" with a 28"-30" waist and he rates them for actually selling trousers he can wear. And his thighs are fairly muscular (he walked in to a group of our friends one time wearing running tights and one of them burst out "My God, will you look at those thigh muscles!" which got her a lot of friendly abuse for looking at men's legs...)

The important question, of course, is colour. No sensible denizen of these parts would think of wearing trousers that weren't as red as the cheeks of a recently spanked Belgian.

[rr]

"Slim fit" shirts are designed for people with very narrow shoulders.  No-one makes off the peg shirts that fit round bigger shoulders while not being baggy round the middle.

Basically, people are getting flabbier and less muscular and the cut of clothes reflects that.

Indeed I am on the border between overweight and obese, I also have a 17.5 inch neck (since I was a skinny 16 year old), John Lewis slim fit shirts are tight around the shoulders but just right on my ample waist. La redoute tallisme shirts are great around the shoulders, long enough (a rare thing) but have room for a pillow in the front.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[hellymedic]

Basically, people are getting flabbier and less muscular and the cut of clothes reflects that.

Sure I wrote this upthread.

Great minds etc...

[rogerzilla]

As Slade sang, Mama Weer All Flabbee Now.

[rogerzilla]

You might try Next. Mr Fimm is 5'5" with a 28"-30" waist and he rates them for actually selling trousers he can wear. And his thighs are fairly muscular (he walked in to a group of our friends one time wearing running tights and one of them burst out "My God, will you look at those thigh muscles!" which got her a lot of friendly abuse for looking at men's legs...)

The important question, of course, is colour. No sensible denizen of these parts would think of wearing trousers that weren't as red as the cheeks of a recently spanked Belgian.

Proper scarlet FRTs have been replaced by plum or dusky pink round here.  By "round here" I mean the Cotswolds, since all Swindon men wear shorts above -5^oC, often when it's colder.

[Ben T]

"Slim fit" shirts are designed for people with very narrow shoulders.  No-one makes off the peg shirts that fit round bigger shoulders while not being baggy round the middle.

Basically, people are getting flabbier and less muscular and the cut of clothes reflects that.

I've got some Charles trywhitt ones that are reasonably slim fit, I have got averagely large shoulders, not massive but not too slight either.... they WILL send you snail mail spam for ever though