--- description: Brands use vanity sizing in order to flatter customers into buying more clothes. And it works. But a size in the 1950s would be a 00 today. title: Why a Size 8 in the 1950s Would Be a Size 00 Today image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltae1968cf68e9cabc/6988a4b32dce0160fb9ea873/sizing-fb.jpg?branch=production ---  * [Living](/tag/time-section-living/) ## Living Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close # Why a Size 8 in the 1950s Would Be a Size 00 Today  by [Eliana Dockterman](/author/eliana-dockterman/)  ## Eliana Dockterman Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close Correspondent Sep 2, 2016 4:48 PM CUT   by [Eliana Dockterman](/author/eliana-dockterman/)  ## Eliana Dockterman Update your preferences in [Account Settings](/account/preferences/) Close Correspondent Sep 2, 2016 4:48 PM CUT [Vanity sizing](http://time.com/how-to-fix-vanity-sizing/ "undefined") has radically changed the meaning of a size 8 over time, as the chart below shows. Studies have shown that shoppers prefer to buy [clothing](http://time.com/money/4298094/clothing-retailers-sales/ "undefined") labeled with small sizes because it boosts their confidence. So as the [weight ](http://time.com/4476624/obesity-rates-state-america/ "undefined")of the average American woman rose, from 140 lb. in 1960 to 168.5 lb. in 2014, brands adjusted their metrics to help more of us squeeze into more-desirable sizes (and get us to buy more clothes), as [TIME reported in a feature this week](http://time.com/how-to-fix-vanity-sizing/ "undefined"). Over time this created an arms race, and retailers went to extremes trying to one-up one another. By the late 2000s, standard sizes had become so forgiving that designers introduced new ones (0, 00) to make up the difference.  Graphic by Lily Chow ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4477888/clothing-vanity-sizing/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4477888/clothing-vanity-sizing/"},"headline":"Why a Size 8 in the 1950s Would Be a Size 00 Today","datePublished":"2016-09-02T16:48:34.000Z","dateModified":"2026-05-11T04:42:14.627Z","description":"See vanity sizing over time","url":"https://time.com/4477888/clothing-vanity-sizing/","keywords":["Living"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltae1968cf68e9cabc/6988a4b32dce0160fb9ea873/sizing-fb.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Eliana Dockterman","jobTitle":"Correspondent","url":"https://time.com/author/eliana-dockterman/"}],"articleSection":"","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltae1968cf68e9cabc/6988a4b32dce0160fb9ea873/sizing-fb.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"sizing-fb","caption":"","creditText":"","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/tag/time-section-living/","name":"Living"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4477888/clothing-vanity-sizing/","name":"Why a Size 8 in the 1950s Would Be a Size 00 Today"}}]}] ```