Trouser sizes
Yesterday I went to Macy’s to take advantage of a good sale they were having in the hours of pre-dawn darkness (that is, before noon). Found some excellent suits: but when it came time to try on the trousers, I found that my size was 34w-32h rather than 32-34, as it has been in ages past. Ought I be concerned? Is this is a sign of things to come? The salesman assured me that trouser sizes tend to be different from, say, khaki sizes. I have my doubts.
Filed under: The Diet by David J. Hughes |
I’m not sure if khakis and trousers have different measurement standards, but I haven’t those measurements since early college, or perhaps even high school. You’re probably safe.
As for me, my belly enjoys an unplanned excursion over the beltline when I shoehorn myself into size 36 pants. I definitely need to loose 20 lbs.
Comment on August 11, 2004 @ 2:20 pm
Yes, reducing waist-size — rather than the dubious BMI — is my corollary goal as well. I haven’t been a 32 since high school (early high school) and until college could comfortably wear a 34 in most styles.
Since then, it’s been pretty much 36-ville.* At the start of this diet, it was a *tight* 36. Now, I’ve got plenty of breathing space and am down to the last hole in my size-36 belt. I may be approaching 34, on the way, I hope, to 32, but I won’t buy pants differently until I settle somewhere and maintain that position for a while. It’s always better to buy too big and tighten the belt than have to pour yourself into something too small.
* With one principal exception: I recently bought size-38 jeans for the express purpose of having them baggy.
Comment on August 11, 2004 @ 6:41 pm