By Bodi.Me | Insights from 3DBODY.TECH 2026, Lugano
At 3DBODY.TECH 2026 in Lugano, Switzerland, Bodi.Me’s Lara Mazzoni, CEO, and Clementine Baldo, Calibration & Technical Fit Manager, presented insights from a two-year research study of curvy and plus-size populations across the USA, UK and EU countries. Their presentation on 21 October, “The Myth of the Proportional Curve: Data, Perception, and the Realities of Inclusive Grading,” examined the gap between real body proportions and the assumptions used to develop extended garment sizes.
Our research highlights a persistent gap in the garment industry’s knowledge and use of body data for curvy and plus-size wearers. When product development overlooks real body proportions, garments can fit poorly, restrict movement and cause discomfort. In workwear and protective clothing, poor fit can also create safety risks. Our message was clear: real body data must inform garment development, size recommendations and supply-chain decisions.
Real body data provides the evidence needed to develop garments around the people who will wear them. Research reveals how proportions vary across sizes, where garments need additional room and which grading assumptions require revision. These insights help technical teams make informed decisions about pattern blocks, garment ease and size ranges, then validate them through wearer testing. For Bodi.Me, the value of research extends through the supply chain: understanding bodies more accurately supports better size recommendations, manufacturing quantities and stock allocation.
View the public conference abstract.
What is plus-size grading?
Plus-size grading is the development of garment patterns across an extended size range, adjusting dimensions and proportions to accommodate the intended wearers. Effective grading considers where additional room is needed, how the garment sits on the body and whether it preserves its intended fit.
A pattern may fit its original sample model beautifully. That alone does not establish that every size developed from it will work equally well.
Fixed grading increments can be useful within a validated range. The difficulty arises when manufacturers extend those rules beyond the body shapes and sizes on which they have tested them.
Plus size and curvy describe different fit needs
Plus size generally describes a size category. Curvy describes proportions, often a greater difference between waist and hip measurements. Brands use both terms differently, so neither replaces a clear description of the body shapes a garment is designed to accommodate.
A plus-size range must account for people with fuller abdomens, straighter waists, fuller hips and other combinations. A curvy cut may suit some of those wearers while leaving others poorly served.
This is why inclusive size development needs to examine the relationship between measurements, rather than treating everyone within a size label as the same shape.
The same size label can describe very different measurements
Our cross-brand size-chart comparison makes the limits of labels clear. In the research presented in Lugano, Tom Tailor’s 2XL starts at a chest measurement of 100.5 cm, while Universal Standard’s starts at 146 cm. That is a difference of 45.5 cm, approximately 46 cm, at the point where the brands move from XL to 2XL.
Where grading can lose touch with the body
Our Lugano presentation examined the connection between body proportions, grading and the room a garment provides. Several areas deserve particular attention:
| Fit area | What garment development needs to consider |
| Abdomen and lower stomach | Front volume and its effect on waistbands, trouser rise and garment balance. |
| Bust | Bust volume and distribution, dart placement and front shaping. |
| Upper arms | Bicep room, sleeve shape and the relationship with the armhole. |
| Hips and seat | Waist-to-hip differences and how volume is distributed around the body. |
| Thighs | Room for sitting and movement, seam position and interaction with the trouser rise. |
These relationships vary between people. Two wearers with similar hip measurements can need different shaping at the waist or seat. Increasing the overall garment size may relieve pressure at one point while creating excess fabric elsewhere.
Independent research supports closer attention to shape. A University of Oregon study presented at 3DBODY.TECH 2020 found that an established body-shape classification method needed modification to better accommodate plus-size women, including fuller abdomens.
Read the University of Oregon research abstract.
What the grading comparisons reveal
Bodi.Me’s Lugano case study compares how measurement increments and calculated garment ease change across sizes. It also explores a proposed grading approach informed by body data.
Comparing three dress grading approaches
Figure: The comparison shows how measurement increments differ across a size range. A and B are body-size charts; C contains finished garment measurements, including ease. The absolute measurements therefore represent different things. Source: Bodi.Me, 3DBODY.TECH 2026, Lugano.
Why garment ease matters across the size range
Garment ease is designed to provide the right fit and comfort. It is the difference between the body measurement and the corresponding garment measurement. In each size, it should preserve the intended silhouette while allowing sufficient room for movement, comfort and safe use.
A body size chart and a finished garment specification therefore describe different things. Comparing them requires attention to the ease built into the garment, as well as its fabric and construction.
Our presentation explored how grading approaches can change that relationship across sizes. A garment can become increasingly restrictive in one area, or progressively looser in another, even when the measurement table appears orderly.
For example, increasing a trouser size to accommodate the abdomen may leave the wearer with an oversized seat or loose legs. The fit decision must consider those areas together.
A stretch fabric also needs appropriate shaping. Its behaviour can help accommodate movement, but it cannot resolve every mismatch between the pattern and the body.
Where grading changes garment ease
Figure: In this woven-dress case study, calculated ease decreases in some areas and becomes excessive in others as sizes increase. The coloured bands describe the criteria used for this comparison. Source: Bodi.Me, 3DBODY.TECH 2026, Lugano.
The industry needs to put body data into practice
Bodi.Me’s two-year research highlights the consequences of insufficient knowledge and data about curvy and plus-size populations. Where manufacturers overlook real body proportions or apply grading assumptions without testing them on representative wearers, product development can reproduce the same fit problems across a collection. Collecting measurements creates value when teams use them to review pattern blocks, grading rules and garment ease.
There is already research to build on. Hohenstein’s plus-size work connects body measurements and shape analysis with pattern development and wearer fittings.
Read Hohenstein’s Fit for Plus Sizes factsheet.
Our practical priorities for more inclusive grading are:
- Use data relevant to the intended wearer population. Check representation across the size range and the body shapes the programme needs to serve.
- Review grading by fit area. Test whether changes at the bust, abdomen, arms, hips and thighs reflect wearer needs.
- Assess ease for each garment. Account for silhouette, fabric, construction and movement.
- Fit-test across the range. Include intermediate sizes and the extremes, with different body shapes.
- Connect fit feedback to development. Investigate recurring problems and use the findings to improve future collections.
Adding more size labels can expand availability. Delivering consistent fit requires this deeper development work.
A proposed grade based on body data
Figure: The proposed Grade D uses body-data analysis to inform different grading curves at the bust, waist and hips. These measurement comparisons illustrate the design approach; pattern development and wearer testing are needed to validate physical fit. Source: Bodi.Me, 3DBODY.TECH 2026, Lugano.
From inclusive fit to better size ordering and stock planning
Fit problems also affect the information businesses use to plan supply.
When wearers order larger sizes to accommodate one restrictive area, ordering history can conceal an underlying fit issue. Repeating that size mix may carry the same problem into the next production run.
For uniform programmes, the opportunity is to connect wearer requirements with the specific garments they need, then aggregate that demand by size, role and location. This can support better production quantities and stock allocation, with fewer avoidable exchanges.
A wearer may need different sizes for a jacket and trousers. Planning around those garment-specific requirements gives procurement teams a more useful picture than assigning one size to the whole person.
How Bodi.Me connects body insight with garment fit
Bodi.Me brings together body-data research, garment calibration and digital size recommendations through Size-Me.
The platform uses AI, machine learning and proprietary size-matching algorithms to recommend sizes against a garment’s specifications and available range. Wearers complete a simple questionnaire without providing photos or undergoing a body scan.
That distinction matters: research can draw on detailed body information while the everyday sizing journey remains straightforward.
Size recommendations help people choose within an existing collection. Research and fit analysis help businesses understand where that collection may need further development. Both contribute to a more informed approach to inclusive sizing.
Checking ease across the size range
Figure: The measurement-based analysis keeps proposed Grade D within the target ease bands at the bust, waist and hips. These bands are specific to this garment study and do not establish universal fit tolerances or verified wearer outcomes. Source: Bodi.Me, 3DBODY.TECH 2026, Lugano.
Frequently asked questions
Why can plus-size clothing fit poorly even when the label is correct?
The label identifies a position within a brand’s size system. Fit also depends on body proportions, garment shaping, ease and fabric. A garment may accommodate the hips while remaining restrictive at the abdomen or upper arms.
Does plus-size grading always need different increments?
The appropriate increments depend on the intended wearers and garment. Body data and fit testing should establish where existing rules work and where different increments, shaping or pattern blocks are needed.
Can digital sizing correct a poorly graded garment?
Digital sizing can help identify the most suitable available size. A garment that lacks the necessary room or shaping still needs development. Size recommendations and pattern improvement address different parts of the fit challenge.
How does inclusive sizing support supply-chain optimisation?
Connecting wearer requirements with garment-specific sizes can improve the information used for ordering, manufacturing quantities and stock distribution. Combining that information with fit feedback helps teams investigate recurring exchanges.
Bring real body data into your next collection
Bodi.Me’s work in Lugano reflects a wider commitment: helping the apparel industry understand how real bodies interact with real garments, and use that knowledge to improve commercial decisions.
For brands, manufacturers and uniform providers, that means examining fit across the range and connecting those findings to what they produce, order and distribute.
Book a Size-Me demonstration to discuss inclusive sizing and better size-demand planning for your programme.
