Monday, 4 March 2013

Back fat

An embarrassing's backfat

We've helped a lot of ladies find their true bra size, but one issue always crops up when we are trying to explain the need for a smaller backsize. Backfat. 

We've all experienced it - you think you look great then catch a glimpse of your rear view in a mirror and, wowser, where did that backfat come from?!? It must mean my bra doesn't's digging in...I better buy a bigger bandsize right?

WRONG! You probably need a smaller band!!!

How can you possibly need a smaller band when you have fat overspilling or underspilling at the back?!

A good bra doesn't just support your front - it supports your back too. And a well fitting bra will make that evil backfat look smaller, not bigger. Once you have your size right - check out our fitting guide - and have "scooped" like we describe, then your backfat will look better than it did in that bra that was too big in the back. And your front will too!

Retailers are getting this wrong. Marks and Spencer told both of us we couldn't possibly need a smaller back when we had back spill issues. So, here's some rather embarrassing photographic evidence (I'm no skinny minnie!) that bigger back does not equal less backfat!

A 36F - the size Marks and Spencer claim I should wear - that's pretty grim right?
This is a 30HH bra that has stretched quite a bit (so it's fitting like a 32)
A 30 which fits pretty well - I have my hands on my hips hence odd shape at top!

As you can see, the bigger band doesn't make the backfat better - it makes it worse. And that's a bra 3 band sizes bigger than I need, so it's seriously loose. 

So don't be scared to try a bra that doesn't add inches. 



No comments:

Post a Comment