NOTES ON CLOTHING ..... SPANKOZ AUSTRALIA ...

Secular trends in body size and shape of Australian women have been investigated. Biological characteristics of the human body size and shape have over the centuries undergone a number of clearly visible changes. These changes do not necessarily occur in any one direction and may differ from country to country. This study compares the data obtained by measuring the size and shape of 100 Australian women with those reported previously on the same parameters. The data from these studies are compared to present day data, used in the clothing design and production industry. Up to the present time no scientific anthropometric survey has been conducted for Clothing Standards in Australia. The current Australian Standard sizing system, for Women’s garments is based on outdated United States data.

Anthropometry as a science provides the quantitative tool for describing the size and shape of the body. Associated with anthropometry is typology, which as a classificatory system, has over the centuries been used to classify the shape and physique of the human body. Various systems of typology are discussed.

Three body measurements were extracted from a larger study of female participants aged between 18 and 74 years. A sample of 100 women in the selected age group and varying socio-economic status took place in the survey. Anthropometric techniques were applied in the data collection. The participants wore close fitting cotton stretch vests over their own undergarments.

Body Mass Index and the newly formed Conicity Index, was used in the study to estimate degrees of fatness and weight increase. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998) classifications of Body Mass Index categories were used. It was found that the Body Mass Index of the average participant fell within the upper end of the acceptable weight classification. A system of rating the Conicity Index values (Muller et al. 1996) was used to assess body fat distribution of participants. It was found that the value of conicity for the average women exceeded the recommended value.

An analysis of Australian, American and British data showed a small increase in height whereas there was a significant increase in weight.

The present Australian Standard size-coding scheme for women’s garments is outdated, and this contributes to the inconsistencies in the sizing system used in the production of women’s garments in Australia. It would appear that the size and shape of Australian women is changing. An anthropometric survey of the Australian population is required to ascertain the present size and shape of the population.

Women, in particular, know the frustrating experience of trying on clothes you can be a size 12 in one store and a 10 in another. Pants can fit around the bottom, but gape at the waist. Dresses can flow smoothly over the hips, but be unbearably tight at the bust.

While there may be no such thing as the standard Australian body shape, researchers believe our official sizing measurements need a rethink.

The University of Adelaide's Department of Anatomical Sciences is conducting a study, commissioned by surfwear company Rip Curl, to find out how much the female body has changed in the past century.

Researchers will measure 2000 women, aged 12 to 24, and have gathered data from more than 1000 women in NSW and Queensland.

The last such scientific study was conducted by the Berlei bra company in 1926 and lead researcher Kath Berry believes there has been a considerable change in the size and shape of Australian women since then.

"Media tend to depict the slim-figured type, but we seem to be getting bigger," she said. "Manufacturers are starting to realise you can't use Australian standards."

Two years ago Ms Berry conducted a survey of 170 women. She found they were six kilograms heavier than the 1926 Australian woman.

Not only were they heavier, but the traditional hourglass figure also seemed to be disappearing.

Almost a third of women surveyed had a rectangular, or H-shaped figure (large all over, with almost no waist definition), while only 18 per cent had a pear shape, (small waist, curving out at the lower hip and thighs).

Standards Australia last reviewed its clothes sizes, based on US data, in the 1970s.

But some clothing manufacturers have already responded to changing body shapes. Target, for example, makes its size 12 bigger in the waist and hip than the Australian standard.

University of Adelaide anthropologist Professor Maciej Henneberg said there was little doubt women's bodies were getting more robust, possibly due to better nutrition and the use of growth hormones in food.

Unlike our Northern Hemisphere counterparts, however, we are not getting much taller. Ms Berry's recent study of Australian women recorded only a two-centimetre height increase since 1926, while US and European women have grown by about 10 centimetres on average.

Most women fit into one of four figure types. Every body is unique. But chances are your figure resembles one of the four classic shapes more closely than it resembles the others.

APPLE: Top-heavy, full bust and upper back. Small definition of waist.
PEAR: Bottom-heavy, hips and thighs wider than shoulders and bust. Well-defined waist.
HOURGLASS: Hips and shoulders about the same width. Well-defined waist.
RECTANGLE: Similar bust, waist and hip measurements. Undefined waist.