Why do clothing manufactures assume that Clydesdales (well pretty much all non- pro levels) are Fat?

[Ecdycis]

I am not even close to being a clydesdale anymore. I used to weigh 197lbs before a shoulder injury, and that is how I got into cycling really, but I digress. I weigh about 170 now and at 7.5% body fat with a 31 inch waist, it is very hard to find jerseys which fit properly. I predict that this will only become more difficult as my previous weight returns (had to hold off on working out for a year after therapy.) But, recently I was looking at new jerseys, and even with stretch, I either can't feel my arms and have a bunch of folds at the waist, or the waist fits but I can't get the damn thing on let alone zipped. I guess they just assume that big guys don't care about bunched up clothing. For once in my life I am happy to be the short one in my family lol at 6 ft. I can still manage to find bibs that fit.

 

[Chavez]

Originally Posted by Ecdycis .

I am not even close to being a clydesdale anymore. I used to weigh 197lbs before a shoulder injury, and that is how I got into cycling really, but I digress. I weigh about 170 now and at 7.5% body fat with a 31 inch waist, it is very hard to find jerseys which fit properly. I predict that this will only become more difficult as my previous weight returns (had to hold off on working out for a year after therapy.) But, recently I was looking at new jerseys, and even with stretch, I either can't feel my arms and have a bunch of folds at the waist, or the waist fits but I can't get the damn thing on let alone zipped. I guess they just assume that big guys don't care about bunched up clothing. For once in my life I am happy to be the short one in my family lol at 6 ft. I can still manage to find bibs that fit.

I've always found that clothing in general assumes if you have a chest size of (x) your waist size will be bigger than that.

I'm hardly v-shaped, but generally, anything I buy to fit me in the chest/shoulders looks like a camisole when it gets down to my waist.

 

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by Chavez .

I've always found that clothing in general assumes if you have a chest size of (x) your waist size will be bigger than that.

I'm hardly v-shaped, but generally, anything I buy to fit me in the chest/shoulders looks like a camisole when it gets down to my waist.

I am not a Clydesdale but thought I'd tag on to the post that said it applies to others too.

I'm older and don't have the body I once had, yet still somewhat V shaped but the same here especially with men's dress shirts. For some stupid reason dress shirts are sold by neck size. Well I have a big 16 1/2-17" neck for my medium build and if I want to get a shirt to wear with a tie, it will be a blimp on my waist even if it is marked tapered "athletic fitting." (OK only with a jacket on.) I have to buy large shirts and have them taken in at the waist.

 

[bigfred]

Certainly most of the cycling wear that is market at "clydesdales" is wider at the bottom than at the top. And, I've found Pearl Izumi to be a bit loos in the middle for any given chest or thigh measurment.

However, there are some brands that fit V shapes better. I recently purchased some Campy bibs and jersey that fit extremely well. XXXL fit's me at 6'4 1/2"/196cm 250lb/115kg with a 48" chest, 41" waist and 28" thighs.

Netti shorts aren't too bad. Don't know about their jerseys. Sugoi, not so good, to tight thighs and loose around the middle. But, not as bad as PI.

 

[Ecdycis]

I generally wear castelli or lousi garneau, but I still have the problem. Dress shirts are bad as well, but at least if there are no pockets tailoring works. My waist is less than 31" and up top I am around 45." My arms are 16.5" and can be a problem with some jerseys.

 

[Ecdycis]

Jackets and coats I generally have to get a smaller size and have it taken out other wise the pockets look ridiculous.