You’re probably wearing your leggings as you read this. I know I am.
You see, the last few years we’ve seen a movement. No, a revolution. The rise and rise and rise of activewear.
Leggings are now pants. Trainers are acceptable on the red carpet. You’re more likely to see someone in Nike going to brunch than barre. And jeans? Haven’t worn those since 2012.
It’s been a blast – and a comfy one at that – but unfortunately the bubble is about to burst.
2017 will go down as the year activewear died. Gone. Over. Why? It reached its peak. And the high fashun designers are to blame.
This year, we’ve seen trainers worth thousands of dollars. Leggings that cost your weekly rent. Velour tracksuits on the runway, once the signature of Paris Hilton and that mum from Mean Girls, for God’s sake. And don’t get me started on the ugliest shoe ever invented that will cost you $800.
Activewear - or 'athleisure' as the stylish have dubbed it - exploded in popularity over the last five years.
From 2014 to 2015, the sale of activewear increased by more than 45 per cent and, in 2016, it accounted for 17 per cent of the apparel market. Understandably, brands were jumping on the activewear bandwagon and, all of a sudden, sneakers became a statement of high fashion.
But the insane growth is slowing and we've seen the closure of some brands that once defined it, such as American Apparel. Designers have pushed it to the point of ridiculousness and, what started as a rebellion, has become so mainstream we're getting tired of it. We're ready for the next thing.
So what happens next? And will we really have to give up our leggings?
I joined Mamamia Out Loud hosts Mia Freedman and Jessie Stephens to dissect this VERY important topic on a special bonus edition of the podcast. Get it in your ears below (a welcome distraction from annoying family members?) then let us know whether you agree.
Listen below, and Merry Christmas!
Top Comments
I have issues with this belief that wealthy people have that because they paid hundreds of dollars for their sweatpants (or thongs), they are therefore different.
Something I actually never realised when I was a teenager is that meeting an expected/required dress code does not have to mean spending a lot of money. You can still get proper pants (and shoes) from discount outlets for (relatively) affordable prices. And, I assume, no-ones going to look inside your attire to see what the label is.
This idea that because an item of attire was expensive, an expected/required dress code does not then really apply, just cements this belief that meeting a dress code really just means that you are required to spend a lot of money.
"You can ... get proper pants (and shoes) from discount outlets ... no-ones going to look inside your attire to see what the label is"
Actually, I've thought about this some more, and I'm wrong. When I was a teenager, people would openly scrutinise your shoes, to figure out the brand; and people would physically grab your clothes to see what the label was. And if they didn't like the brand/label, they would let you know - often by yelling out the name.
Somewhere out there Jennifer Beals and Olivia Newton John are crying right now, this news hit them hard.