I won't truck with salespeople who don't care that I'd spend money in their store if they supported those of us who aren't skinny but still want to go outdoors (gasp!).
I'm going to +1 this as well. I'm 5'10" and 190, most of it is muscle. I could stand to get down to 175, at which point I will actually Look Thin. I'm just huge. I weighed 10 lbs at birth. I've always been in the top percentiles for height and weight. I got down to 165 when I was finishing my PhD and getting divorced (same summer) and I was emaciated...people kept asking me if I'd been seriously ill. And even then? I wore a standard size 14. Size 14 on me is where my backbones, collarbones, ribs, and hip bones stick out.
One thing that really pisses me off is the totally bizarre and tiny sizing for women's technical gear (ski, hiking, yoga, you name it). Standard size 18 (XL) chest is 43-44". Columbia uses the standard sizing, but Patagonia, North Face, and prAna consider a chest of 41 1/2 (size 16) to be an XL. Lands End also considers a 41" chest to be a size 16, but they more reasonably consider this to be a Large. It's even worse for some of the other brands, who consider 14 to be an XL.
I think it's not just women's gear, though, because when I took Mr. Serafina to get a pair of insulated ski pants, he wound up in an XXL, I think, and he's a very normal size for a guy.
WTF is it with this stuff? Athletic women are assumed to be tiny? Who the devil considers a size 14 to be an XL? This isn't Manhattan's Fashion District, for pete's sake. I have been riding Steep & Cheap looking for some suitable softshells for the spring, and basically, I don't even bother if it is some garment intended for women, because I know they aren't going to make it in my size (and while I have a 44" chest, that is only a C-cup for me!). All of the athletic gear I have is men's gear! Including, I should say, my SKI BOOTS because I take a 26.5 mondo, which is not at all a common size to find in a women's boot.
Boo. Hiss.
