I’m not sure who came up with the sizing of these, as they clearly are meant for 8-10’ human beings. I.e., impossible.
I’m 6’/250lbs, and wear 32-34" long pants - max. And the waist sizing isn’t much more accurate.
Caveat emptor.
How’s the cut through the thighs? I’ve been finding more and more inexpensive lounge pants and sweats with ridiculously narrow legs. I can’t even get them on, even with a larger waist size than I usually wear. I’m not skinny-jeans material.
Length looks to be the outseam, rather than the inseam.
If so, that’d be the first time I’ve ever see that measurement used. Inseam is SOP.
Pretty sure not one person, aside from designers and tailors, knows their own outseam number.
I’ve seen it a few times here but I agree with you.
The other thing is the waist sizing. Way too small.
Point being - for you, anyway - try to get the description updated, and expect lots of returns and/or complaints.
I’m not sure about that. I just looked at the Nike sweatpants size chart and the waist sizes were comparable.
@ThunderThighs: unhappy to report the monkeys still haven’t fixed the prime status: now my cart says shipping speed is “standard free” at the bottom and “S&H: 6.00” at top right.
(Which is an improvement because the “standard free” bit wasn’t there before)
There’s no such thing as a 38-42" XXL. Their 3XL measurements are roughly average (to small) for 2XL.
My opinion is based on buying 2XL clothing for 30 years.
For accurate, analogous sizing, check out Under Armour measurements:
Gotcha. This brand does tend to run small. Make sure you always look at the size chart.