Why Designing Extended Sizes Isn’t “Too Hard”—It’s Just Underfunded

One of the most common explanations brands give for stopping at size 24 is that extended sizes are “too difficult” to design and produce. You’ve likely heard it framed as a technical limitation, a logistical headache, or an unfortunate but unavoidable reality of fashion.

But here’s the truth: “difficult” is not the same as impossible.

Complexity has never stopped innovation in fashion before—so why is it used as a stopping point when it comes to dressing larger bodies?

It’s true that bodies in larger sizes vary more widely in proportion. Weight distribution changes. Torso lengths differ. Curves appear—and shift—in ways that straight-size patterns simply don’t account for.

Fit needs in extended sizes are more nuanced. One-size-fits-all grading approaches don’t work, and pretending they do is where many brands go wrong.

Designing well for extended sizes requires:

• Skilled, intentional patternmaking

• Multiple fit models across sizes

• Thoughtful testing and iteration

• Time, attention, and experience
  
  

Yes, that’s more work. But none of it is a dead end. These are design challenges to be solved—not excuses to stop making clothes for real bodies.

The biggest issue isn’t that extended sizes are inherently harder to design. It’s that most fashion systems were never built to support them.

For decades:

• Design education has centered almost exclusively on straight-size bodies

• Many designers graduate without training in extended-size fit

• Production facilities are optimized for smaller sizes

• Machinery, cutting tables, and workflows are scaled accordingly
  
  

Factories that can handle extended sizing do exist—but working with them requires intention, investment, and a willingness to do things differently. And that’s where many brands hesitate.

When brands choose not to invest in inclusive patternmaking or seek out capable production partners, size 24 becomes the default ceiling.

Not because bodies above it are impossible to dress—but because expanding requires resources, time, and the courage to challenge long-standing habits.

Designing extended sizes isn’t a question of talent.
It’s a question of priority.

The good news? Brands that commit to extended sizing from the start prove—every single day—that it works.

Retailers who treat fit as foundational rather than optional show that extended sizes aren’t an obstacle. They’re simply part of the standard.

When brands:

• Allocate proper resources

• Hire fit models in every size

• Test garments thoroughly and thoughtfully
  
  

Designing for size 26, 28, 30, and beyond becomes just another step in the process—not a headache to avoid.

Inclusive brands demonstrate what the rest of the industry often refuses to acknowledge: extended sizing isn’t a limitation—it’s an opportunity.

An opportunity to:

• Meet customers where they actually are

• Respect and celebrate real bodies

• Build trust and long-term loyalty with shoppers who have been ignored for decades
  
  

Designing for extended sizes isn’t “too hard.”
It’s underfunded.

And until the fashion industry invests in the people, processes, and knowledge required to make extended sizing standard—not exceptional—the myth of “too hard” will continue to hold back innovation that’s long overdue.