Sunday, 27 April 2025

Kiddo Fluffy Fly Adult Diapers Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology


 

Summary

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly is a very high absorbency cloth-backed diaper produced for the company Diaper Minister, a French ABDL-oriented diaper supplier. The Fluffy Fly appears to be near the top of the absorbency line offered for the Kiddo brand at an impressive advertised absorbency of 6500 ml (220 oz), although they also offer an even more absorbent Kiddo Xtreme version. Even though the brand distributor is European, these appear to be nearly identical to the InControl Active Air in design and materials and are sold from a number of North American distributors. So I can say with a high degree of confidence that they were produced by the same manufacturer in China. Yet, unlike the plain InControl diapers, these diapers feature a playful cartoon pattern with an aviation theme. This also extends to the packaging, which is relatively uncommon for ABDL companies, with most going for a cheaper clear packaging and embedded paper label. However, compared with more medical-oriented products, the actual details on the packaging are pretty sparse, with limited information about the company, sizing/other sizes, or other product lines. I was able to glean a little more information on the company from their website, which is listed on the packaging.

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly is a full featured diaper with both front and rear waistbands and standing inner leak guards. These are very bulky but also well designed for breathability. I found them to be incredibly comfortable and highly absorbent for both daily wear and particularly for bedwetting. They fit about average to perhaps slightly on the smaller side. It should be noted that the sizing is somewhat limited since there is no small and it instead starts from medium and goes to L and XL. That said, I feel that the medium size is similar to a small/medium in many other brands with the lower extent of the medium waist size being 27.5” (70 cm) in this, compared with many that start medium at a 30~32” (76~81 cm) waist. Aside from that, the advertised absorbency is an incredible amount; however, as is typically the case, in real world scenarios I found the actual absorbency before leakage is likely to be around 30% or less of what was advertised. I found that to be less of a concern because for practical reasons you’re unlikely to ever approach the full 6500 ml (220 oz) before you’d want to change for one reason or another, skin health first and foremost. Like the very similar InControl Active Air, I rank this diaper very highly. The primary downside to these is the very high unit price, but I was very fortunate to receive a generous donation for a case of these and can confidently say I’d highly recommend the Kiddo Fluffy Fly for dealing with bedwetting and would certainly go with them again! As always, suggestions and donations are highly appreciated!


Key Features:

  • Cloth-like backsheet
  • Playful cartoon prints on backsheet
  • Standing inner leak guards
  • Dual landing zones
  • Repositionable fasteners

Pros:

  • Highly durable
  • Incredibly absorbent
  • Breathable/comfortable

Cons:

  • Very high unit cost
  • Very bulky/not discreet

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Kiddo Fluffy Fly Adult Diapers. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: Kiddo (diaper-minister)
Manufacturer: Weifang Mimosa Personalcare Technology
Origin: China
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $$$$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 30 cm (11.8") x 18 cm (7.1") x 24.5 cm (9.7")
Weight: 2.0 kg (4.4 lbs)
Available Sizes: M,L,XL
Advertised Absorbency: 6500 ml (220 oz)

1.1 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: No
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White (clouds & cartoon bunny characters)
Inner Color: White (blue rectangle in the middle)
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 3 cm (1.18")
Folded Length: 25 cm (9.8")
Dry Weight: 197 g (7 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 83 cm (32.7") x 65 cm (25.6") x 32 cm (12.6") x 64 cm (25.2")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 66 cm (26") x 28 cm (11") x 19 cm (7.5") x 39 cm (15.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4.5 cm (1.8") x 13 cm (5.1") x 10 cm (3.9") x 21 cm (8.3")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1791 cm2 (278 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 3.5 cm (1.4") x 10.5 cm (4.1")
Tape (W x L): 5 cm (2") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Kiddo Fluffy FLy Diaper


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 2578 ml (90.9 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 2703 ml (95.4 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (50 s, 53 s, 69 s, 79 s, 84 s, 88 s, 96 s, 96 s, 108 s, 89 s, 106 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 7 cm (2.8")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 86%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.44 ml / cm2 (0.33 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 125 ml (4.4 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 7

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly was a strong performer in terms of resistance to surface dampness. During the lab power towel test there was no obvious moisture after the first wetting, but it was apparent after the second wetting. I rank it the same as the InControl Active Air and InControl BeDry Night in this regard since the performance was nearly identical. However, in real world testing I noticed the surface dampness far less than might be expected. Sometimes there would be brief pooling, but otherwise moisture was very quickly overwhelmed by the incredible level of absorbency.




2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test


2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test


"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests


Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 978 ml (34.5 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 2 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 53%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.55 ml / cm2 (0.12 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 9
The Kiddo Fluffy Fly performed strongly when tested while standing and sitting. The first wetting while standing was almost immediately absorbed with the only obvious difference being some swelling below the crotch. Otherwise surface dampness wasn’t apparent and of course there were no leaks. Nor were there any leaks upon sitting shortly afterward. On the second wetting while seated, moisture pushed back up the front more and there was some very brief pooling before it settled through the front padding. Once it subsided it continued to feel dry but the swelling at the front was more notable. The rear and most mid padding was completely dry at this point. The third wetting while seated resulted in an unexpected leak. Previous wettings had caused the mid-section padding to swell and the result was a dam that sent moisture back upward along the front. This pooling was enough that some ended up escaping under the front right leak guard and ended up leaking moderately under the wing. Based on there still being a reasonable amount of dry padding at the start I expected it to hold out at least one more wetting before the dam effect took hold so it may have been due to fit or some weakness in the front leak guards. It still absorbed a lot and would absorb a lot more when standing, but perhaps only 2~3 wettings while seated before leakage would be a concern.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 1828 ml (64.5 oz)
Total Wettings: 5
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 61%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 1.02 ml / cm2 (0.23 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 10

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly performed remarkably well when tested while lying down and should prove a strong choice for dealing with bedwetting. The first wetting was quickly absorbed into the lower front padding with little-to-no pooling. No moisture made it even to the start of the rear padding. After the wetting there was perhaps a little more swelling at the crotch, but the diaper continued to feel dry. It was much the same on the second wetting, moisture largely ended up in the crotch area with nothing making it into even the lower rear padding. The wetting was rapidly distributed and absorbed through the padding with the front padding swelling further increasing. Again, after the wetting there was no perceivable surface dampness, the diaper just felt thicker at the front. The damp padding had a bit of a squishy feel to it at this point but was well contained without any sign of clumping. The third wetting again showed no signs of leakage. Once again, moisture was quickly distributed through the padding and this time some made it into the lower rear padding. Still the diaper continued to feel dry and breathable after it was fully absorbed with the only perceivable difference being additional swelling in the mid-section. On the fourth wetting there was a little more pooling and surface dampness was initially apparent, with moisture making further into the rear padding to a little over halfway to the end. Again, there was no sign of leakage and the core padding area continued to feel dry, though I noticed a little more moisture near the leak guards even after it was fully absorbed into the padding. Finally, on the fifth wetting there was a significant leak. As is usual with high capacity diapers the mid-section padding had swelled to the point that it formed a moisture dam. This resulted in moisture building back up the front of the diaper and eventually spilling into the wings. Once in the wings it was easily able to escape from outside the rear leg gathers. That said, by this point the diaper had absorbed a tremendous amount and there was still a bit of dry padding at the rear so theoretically it could have absorbed much more. In spite of the leak, the padding didn’t feel completely saturated either and it still had a mostly dry feel to it. Based on these results the Kiddo Fluffy Fly should be well suited for bedwetting and I’d expect it to manage 3~4 wettings before leakage would be a concern.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

Typically in my diaper reviews I’ll only be able to get a sense of performance from what’s in a single package (some of which can be quite limited). However, for the Kiddo Fluffy Fly I was able to test it a bit more thoroughly by going through a case load. This has me feeling a lot more confident in my assessment of this product. I wore these regularly for bedwetting for several weeks and was very impressed with the performance; not once did I wake up and find even a hint of a leak. In fact, many mornings I’d wake up and be completely unaware of whether the diaper was wet or not because these diapers are very thick and have a wide area of padding coverage. I’m a little less confident about the performance when seated. I don’t need this level of absorbency for my typical daily wear, but I gave them a test several times in various circumstances. If wet when standing they can absorb a tremendous amount, likely approaching or exceeding what I found when tested while lying down. When seated there are a couple of factors that will result in an earlier leak than you might expect. The first being that the padding is so thick and prone to swelling that it can easily create a dam that prevents moisture from working its way back toward the rear. Instead moisture will pool up at the front until it passes through the leak guards. This won’t happen on the first wetting, but is more likely on the third wetting and may even happen as early as the second. The other issue I found when seated was that a gap can develop between the front inner leak guards around the crotch and moisture will just run under it. This wasn’t an issue when standing or lying down, but it was more obvious when sitting where the shape of the diaper deformed enough to create a gap and leaks happened much earlier than they’d be expected if the leak guards kept their seal. Aside from that, I almost never noticed any surface dampness during testing and it felt surprisingly breathable for its level of thickness. I didn’t have much in the way of skin irritation either, though I did make the mistake of fastening the lower tab too close to my thigh one night, only to have the hook & loop fastener leave some scratches on my legs. This can easily be avoided by fastening the tapes higher up on the landing zone. The other thing I’d note is that although these do have potential issues with leaks if wet while seated, they are also highly resistant to pressout moisture, even after multiple wettings. I never noticed any pressout leaks when sitting while wet. Nor did I notice even a hint of perspiration through the backsheet, which can often happen on these cloth-like diapers. In terms of durability these were top notch, but the thickness will somewhat resist movement and I don’t think they’d be the best choice for exercise. The bulk is also very obvious and will be very difficult to hide when away from home. All in all, I’d highly recommend these for bedwetting and maybe for casual around the house wear, but you’re likely to want something more discreet or at least something that provides better coverage if wet when seated for general daily wear.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 10

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly seems perfectly suited for dealing with bowel incontinence. It has all the features you’d look for, including inner leak guards, dual waistbands and extensive rear padding. Even with its backsheet being cloth-like I wouldn’t expect that to have much impact as it’s reasonably well suited for handling odors and I never saw a hint of perspiration through it. The tapes also proved highly durable with no hints of sagging during testing. This diaper is quite bulky, but expect it to perform exceptionally well for dealing with bowel incontinence.

Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly has a cloth-like backsheet and cartoon patterned landing zone. The landing zone has a rougher granular texture that helps the hook & loop fasteners find their positioning. The fasteners are quite wide as is the coverage of the landing zone, which runs most of the way along the front wings. Though the front wings and landing zone that runs over it is somewhat narrow, so the tapes can come quite close together and it’s better to tape a bit further up. This diaper has both front and rear waistbands, but otherwise it’s almost the same diaper as the InControl Active Air. It feels big due to bulkiness and thickness of the padding, but the actual sizing is about average relative to other brands and I found the medium fit me well. With medium being the smallest size available it may act more like a small/medium in brands that offer that combined sizing.

3.1 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

I found the Kiddo Fluffy Fly to be quite easy to use after I found a good tape placement. Again, these are nearly the same as the InControl Active Air, but a bit thicker and they have a waistband on the front, whereas the Active Air has none. The landing zone on this diaper is patterned so you have an easy reference to reproduce a fit once you’ve found your best fit. However, unlike the InControl Active Air, these don’t feature a wetness indicator so may not work as well in a care environment. On the plus side, these are very easy to roll up and wrap when they’re ready to be disposed of. The dual waistbands and stretchy leg gathers also help create a good snug fit that should work for most body shapes. Moreover, I found I could readjust the tapes easily without losing adhesiveness. I think the biggest challenge people will find is that the fasteners are pretty wide and the landing zone relatively narrow so you’re likely to have to pull the fasteners in quite close together for a better fitting. Nevertheless, I rank this diaper among the best in terms of ease-of-use.

3.2 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Fit

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 10

I give the Kiddo Fluffy Fly top marks when it comes to dry comfort, aligning it with the very similar InControl Active Air. Although the material isn’t the softest on the market it’s still very soft and the padding is so extensive that relatively little of the wearer’s skin will be in direct contact with the backsheet. It’s the same story with the backsheet material, which is cloth-backed but has a more papery feel than one of fabric. It isn’t the softest but easily soft enough to feel comfortable. The same is true for the leg gathers and leak guards, which I never found to cause much irritation during movement. That said, comfort can be tricky to quantify, and the bulkiness of these could be an issue for some. Moreover, while it’s soft you won’t find it to be as soft as something like the Attento tape diaper, but that one is far less absorbent and almost no other diapers hit that degree of softness. Aside from that, I never had any issues with clumping or tearing of the padding or fastener deterioration and sliding, which could cause discomfort. I did find that I occasionally put the hook & loop fasteners a bit too low and ended up getting some friction with my thighs; this can easily be corrected by taping a bit higher up so I didn’t count that negatively toward comfort. These are also relatively breathable and should be decent in warm weather wear; at least for their extreme level of absorbency.


Comfort Rating (wet): 10

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly was again very similar to the InControl Active Air when it came to wet comfort. It’s one of those diapers where even after one or two wettings you’d struggle to tell whether it was actually wet. Since even the dry state is quite thick, the extra swelling when wet can be hard to discern from the regular thickness until multiple wettings. The extensive hyper absorbent padding also means you’re unlikely to ever see more than 50% of the padding damp before you change. Aside from that, it has a decent degree of protection against surface dampness. If that weren’t enough, the breathable design also reduces any sensation of clamminess. The padding also remains highly durable when wet and I never noticed any obvious clumping or tearing of the padding in this state. The tapes also had no issue holding up the wet diaper even when the weight was considerable during the capacity tests. Yes, this diaper will get thicker when wet, which is physically unavoidable, but it won’t sag in the slightest. Perhaps the only thing you need to watch for is in your applying the fasteners, if you apply the lower tabs too low there’s a risk of it coming loose and coming into contact with the thigh.

3.3 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 8.3% (topsheet), 9.5% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 2 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9
I rank the Kiddo Fluffy Fly about the same as the InControl Active Air when it comes to dry durability. During the dry durability test there was little in the way of significant deterioration and where the padding did deteriorate it was mostly due to collapsing under its own width between the legs and wasn’t the type of deterioration that would have any noticeable impact on performance. The hook & loop fasteners also held out remarkably well and I was able to apply and adjust them multiple times without weakening them. They consistently retained their grip on the landing zone with little in the way of shifting (I did notice some slight shifts over time). I didn’t have any issue with the diaper coming loose during wear. However, because of its sheer bulk there are limitations to how actively you could wear these diapers. All in all, this diaper ranks near the top when it comes to dry durability.


Durability Rating (wet): 9

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly is bulky but highly durable when wet. The padding condition is hardly changed from its dry state with no obvious additional clumping or tearing. The tapes are highly resilient and I didn’t notice any sagging when wearing this diaper. Like its dry state, the tapes may slide slightly, but not enough to cause significant impairment to its function. Moreover, even though this diaper has a cloth-like backsheet and sometimes those are susceptible to perspiration, I didn’t notice any hint of perspiration through this backsheet. The backsheet remained moisture impermeable after multiple wettings and wasn’t affected by sitting where deterioration or pressout can sometimes cause issues. Of course, the thickness of this diaper will make it a struggle for active wear; this is particularly true when wet, but the trade-off is its exceptional capacity.

3.4 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Dry Test Deterioration


Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 4 cm (1.6")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 8 cm (3.2"), 7 cm (2.8")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6 cm (2.4"), 6 cm (2.4")

Profile Discretion Rating: 3

The Kiddo Fluffy Fly clearly wasn’t designed with discretion in mind. This is a very thick diaper, nearly as thick as the InControl BeDry Night, and it will have a very obvious diaper bulge at the front and rear. It would be difficult to hide under most outfits. Moreover, it has cartoon prints, which while more subtle than most ABDL-themed diapers, will stand out wherever the diaper becomes visible.

4.1 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 7

For a very large bulky diaper, the Kiddo Fluffy Fly is relatively discreet when it comes to noise. The cloth-like backsheet generally doesn’t encounter the sort of resistance and shifting that would cause much in the way of noise. The exception to this is the landing zone at the front. The material on the landing zone is coarser, thicker and much more susceptible to noise. I noticed it when standing, sitting or walking, but it wasn’t much more than the occasional crinkle. I’d imagine if you’re wearing enough layers to disguise this diaper you won’t find noise to be a concern.

4.3 Kiddo Fluffy Fly Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 7

Assessing the ability of the Kiddo Fluffy Fly to resist odors was a bit tricky. Initially I expected it to perform about the same as the InControl Active Air and I did notice a lesser degree of the issues I had on that one where the interaction with urine and some component in the diaper appeared to release more obvious odors. It wasn’t nearly as noticeable in this diaper though. This diaper has dual waistbands so that could also be a contributing factor to it being less susceptible to odor release or maybe the extra padding made a difference.


Saturday, 19 April 2025

Depend Real-Fit Maximum Protective Underwear

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology


 

Summary

The Depend Real-Fit Maximum is a protective underwear style product best suited for light-moderate urinary incontinence. Although this blog has focused extensively on adult diapers, there are a broad range of adult protective underwear products available. Thanks to a generous donation, I’m kicking this category of reviews with the Depend Real-Fit Maximum. Protective underwear products tend to be less absorbent than adult diapers and typically aren’t suited for full loss of bladder or bowel control. Ideally, with protective underwear you’ll want to be able to wear it for an extended period of time to handle smaller leaks or continuous light dribble and change when home, because changing them in public restrooms may be challenging given you need to remove your pants to change. The Depend lineup of products includes the three main categories for incontinence management, with pads like the Depend Male Guard and diapers like the Depend Protection with Tabs. These products are produced by Kimberly Clark, which also produces youth protective underwear including Goodnites and Pull-Ups. Like its youth brand equivalents, the Depend line of products is quite well marketed and widely available in stores in many parts of the world.

This is a gendered product, targeted at male wearers with absorbent padding focused up further up the front where it will be most helpful for daily wear. During testing, I found the Depend Real-Fit to be comparable to regular underwear in terms of fit and feel. It’s quite soft and exceptionally breathable. This is a protective underwear you could easily wear for your daily routine without much resistance and a high degree of discretion. That said, it has a very limited capacity and can be quite susceptible to leaks with voids over 200 ml (6.7 oz). It could be a great choice for conditions like urinary stress or overflow incontinence. The padding has a very abrupt cutoff at the rear, so it won’t be a good choice for bowel incontinence. The padding itself is quite similar to what you’ll find in a Depend Male Guard. Interestingly, the padding design and waist structure differ significantly from the Goodnites design, suggesting a different manufacturing process. The sizing in the Depend Real-Fit is somewhat limited, with only S-M and L-XL versions. It makes up for this limitation by being highly elastic and form fitting, though some at the fringes of the targeted waist/weight range may find it tough to get the fit they’re looking for. In spite of its limited absorbency, it can absorb a surprising amount (nearly 500 ml (16.9 oz)) if leakage occurs slowly. Moreover, the padding is quite resistant to surface dampness and also seems to have a good resistance against pressout moisture. All in all, if you’re looking for a product with similar function to an incontinence pad like a guard, but want a bit more protection, longer duration of wear or perhaps more comfort, then this would be a good choice, but it isn’t suitable for those with full bladder loose or use for lying down/bedwetting (given the limited padding coverage up the rear).


Key Features:

  • Cloth-like backsheet
  • Flexible elastic waist
  • 4 in 1 Skinguard

Pros:

  • Comfortable and breathable
  • Highly discreet
  • Resistant to surface dampness
  • Highly flexible/durable

Cons:

  • Low absorbency
  • No standing inner leak guards
  • Limited sizing (just S-M/L-XL)

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the small/medium-sized Depend Real-Fit Protective Underwear. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: Depend
Manufacturer: Kimberly-Clark Corp
Origin: USA
Units Per Bag: 14
Cost Per Unit: $$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 26 cm (10.2") x 11 cm (4.3") x 20 cm (7.9")
Weight: 0.8 kg (1.8 lbs)
Available Sizes: S-M,L-XL
Advertised Absorbency: Maximum

1.1 Depend Real-Fit Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: No
Standing Inner Leak Guards: No
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Protective Underwear
Refastenable Tabs: No
Number of Tapes: N/A
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: Light Grey (dark grey waistband)
Inner Color: Dark Grey (light grey lining and white pad with light blue markings)
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 2 cm (0.79")
Folded Length: 21 cm (8.3")
Dry Weight: 60 g (2.1 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 69 cm (27.2") x 38 cm (15") x 16 cm (6.3") x 33 cm (13")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Connected, Connected
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 38 cm (15") x 14 cm (5.5") x 8 cm (3.2") x 12 cm (4.7")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 3 cm (1.2") x 12 cm (4.7") x 2 cm (0.8") x 5 cm (2")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 396 cm2 (61 in2)
Tape (W x L): 17 cm (6.7") x 0.5 cm (0.2")

1.2 Depend Real-Fit Protective Underwear


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 490 ml (17.3 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 490 ml (17.3 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (36 s, 38 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 4.5 cm (1.8")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 100%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.24 ml / cm2 (0.28 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 0 ml (0 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 7

The Depend Real-Fit performed strongly in terms of resisting surface dampness. During the lab test it showed little-to-no moisture on the paper towel after two wettings, at which point the padding had effectively reached capacity. Moreover, there was little hint of pressout moisture when testing for that after the capacity test (though initial pooling cause some to leak to the sides before that). I found the same to be true in real world testing, where moisture was generally not noticeable unless it was pushed to the point of leakage and even then it was the area around the padding, not the padding itself, where you’d notice it.


2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test


2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test


"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests


Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 415 ml (14.6 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing)
Leaked After Sitting: Yes
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 86%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 1.05 ml / cm2 (0.24 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 1

The Depend Real-Fit is better suited for light-moderate urinary incontinence and shouldn’t be expected to handle a full wetting. During testing it leaked on the first wetting while standing before I even had a chance to sit. Moisture quickly worked its way toward the rear and, with the absence of standing inner leak guards or significant rear padding, it was able to hit the leg gathers and leak out through the mid-leg gathers. I didn’t continue to sit after because the leak was already clear, though the padding that did manage to lock away moisture seemed reasonably durable against surface dampness and the padding didn’t have a feeling that might be more susceptible to pressout. At the end of the test there was also still a dry region at the very front of the padding, suggesting the potential for a little more capacity. This protective underwear is very durable and will hold out well for daily wear, but don’t expect it to manage a full wetting. Think of the performance as being more like what you’d get from a highly absorbent male guard.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 340 ml (12 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 73%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.86 ml / cm2 (0.20 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 1

I wouldn’t recommend the Depend Real-Fit for bedwetting or use when lying down. The padding doesn’t extend far up the rear so performance and usage is more in line with what you might expect from a male guard. Nevertheless, I put it through a test. As expected there was a substantial leak on the first wetting with moisture running down the rear and escaping from the back as well as some pushing up the front and escaping through the wings. There was still a fair amount of unused padding further up the front so, again, the potential exists for further absorption but you might only hit near it if you had a continuous slow dribble. Even in that case, I’d suggest this is a product better suited for daily usage.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Depend Real-Fit Maximum made for a bit of a different review experience than typical when I evaluate for product effectiveness in daily wear and bedwetting. This protective underwear clearly isn’t designed for bedwetting and I didn’t put it to the test in that case. That’s not to say that it couldn’t work if you have minor drips and dribbles during the night, but just that it won’t take a full void (particularly while in bed) so I didn’t take any chances on this one. However, as I only have occasional light drips or dribbles during the day, and this protective underwear was more than absorbent enough for those, I was able to assess it for the daily wear case. I received a helpful suggestion on how to get a better fit with this underwear by pulling across the padding horizontally to stretch the leg gathers before wear and that turned out to be quite useful in getting a comfortable fit. Though I will note that the fit takes some getting used to depending on what you regularly wear. The leg gathers sit relatively low on the thighs and the lack of inner leak guards mean there will be a wider fit around the crotch. However, the front padding is wide enough that it won’t hinder performance or easily allow leaks to escape to the sides. I believe this also contributes to the breathable feel of the Depend Real-Fit.  During my daily wear I never came close to feeling any dampness in the padding. The padding in this protective underwear has a layer that blocks absorbed moisture from making it back outward where it can contact the skin. The only exception would be for leaks that run to the leak guards where it could feel damp; I never experienced that in regular wear, only when I tried to push it to the point of leaking. The only thing I noticed was that the padding can become a little coarser after an extended period of wear and that may cause some irritation if active, though this isn’t necessarily unique to this product. The material makeup of the Depend Real-Fit is highly elastic so it won’t resist at all during exercise or movements that might be problematic in an adult diaper. Also I didn’t notice any chafing or irritation from any part of this underwear even after jogging in it. I also found it incredibly discreet, even without wearing meshpants or regular underwear over top. Again comparable to the level of discretion you’d get from a pad in regular underwear, if not more so, because the built-in pad means less layers of overlap compared with a male guard under thicker underwear. With all that said, I’ll note again that there’s very little padding at the rear and if you suffer bowel incontinence this will give you minimal protection. It’s well suited for daily wear when dealing with voids below 200 ml (6.7 oz). Its price point runs relatively high vs male guards (at least double~triple the price), so if you do go with these you’ll want to use them for a longer duration of wear.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 1

The Depend Real-Fit isn’t designed for handling fecal incontinence, though it may work better than a male guard because the padding reaches very slightly up the rear. It being cloth-backed and lacking standing leak guards would also be detrimental to handling fecal incontinence. I really wouldn’t recommend it for this purpose.

 

Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Depend Real-Fit has a highly flexible protective underwear design with a cloth-like backsheet. To change it you simply pull it up and down like regular underwear. The connected sides have some similarities to Goodnites while the absorbent pad is quite similar to an extended Depend Male Guard. The waistband in this underwear differs from the Goodnites fit in that it’s consistent all the way around and more like a thicker version of the side connector material than a well defined waistband. Also, while this underwear does have fairly snug leg gathers, it doesn’t have standing inner leak guards. In terms of sizing, I’d say it runs about average to perhaps slightly above. I found the rise above the waist to be a bit higher than I expected and the S-M felt a little large on me but not overwhelmingly so. The sizing on the package of this underwear is notable in that it gives a fit range for waist, hips and weight whereas most products only show one of the three.

3.1 Depend Real-Fit Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 8

This protective underwear is quite user friendly. The design is highly flexible and form fitting so it’s easy to get a snug fit for a wide range of body sizes. The package is helpful in that it gives multiple dimensions by which to judge your appropriate size, though it’s relatively limited in terms of sizing with only S-M and L-XL Importantly, this underwear has a distinct “back” label on the inside to make it clear how it should be pulled up. The padding in this underwear has a form like a guard with the majority of the padding running up the front and the widest padding toward the top, while it gets quite thin below the rear then cuts off well short of the rear waistline. The lack of standing inner leak guards will be problematic if one were to have a bowel accident in these and it would be difficult to change. The other thing to note is that you’ll need to remove your pants to change these just like you would regular underwear. This underwear comes wrapped pretty tightly with the leg gathers folded inward; I received helpful advice to pull it horizontally at the padded area to get a better fit, which turned out to improve its function and comfort. It should also be noted that this underwear doesn’t have a wetness indicator, so may not be the best choice for a care environment. Otherwise, I would suggest treating these similar to incontinence pads in terms of how they should be used but keeping in mind you’d need to fully remove them to change them. They won’t handle a full wetting, but may provide more comfort than a stand alone incontinence pad as the padding won’t shift or slide off with movement.

3.2 Depend Real-Fit Protective Underwear Fit

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 9

I found the Depend Real-Fit to be highly comfortable. When first worn, this protective underwear hardly feels different from regular underwear. It does have a bit more of a roomy feel to it, but that also contributes to the breathable feeling. It feels a little strange if you’re accustomed to standard underwear or protective underwear/diapers with inner leg guards that reach higher up the thigh. The design is highly flexible with an elastic stretchy material that circles around the entire pad. The padding itself is quite soft, though not the softest on the market. Again it feels like an extended Depend Male Guard. I found initially it will be soft, but it can become a bit coarser over time, which may cause skin irritation during activity. The pad is thin but has some density so it won’t give you that “fluffy” feel you’ll get in some diapers or protective underwear. On the plus side, this dense padding holds its form very well and won’t noticeably clump or tear even during more strenuous activities. It will also readily dissipate heat and is unlikely to feel clammy even in warm weather.


Comfort Rating (wet): 9

Given the nature of this product you’re unlikely to have a large enough volume of leakage to ever notice it too much when wet. That said, during my testing I allowed for more leakage than I typically would during daily wear and found even after a substantial leak the underwear felt quite dry and breathable. The padding will noticeably swell but remains very resilient to deterioration. It felt like there was a slight amount of sagging, but it may have been more due to the larger fit. What was very apparent during testing was the remarkable ability of the padding in this underwear to lock away moisture and prevent surface dampness. With smaller drips and dribbles you won’t really notice the dampness at all. For its intended usage in relation to male guards I rank this underwear as a top performer when it comes to wet comfort.

3.3 Depend Real-Fit Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 2% (topsheet), 7.9% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 2 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9

The Depend Real-Fit is highly durable as you might expect with its extensive elastic design. I was able to run and exercise in these without feeling any significant resistance. Additionally, I didn’t notice any significant clumping or tearing of the padding after all that activity. During the dry durability test it held out incredibly well. The only minor thing I noted was that the elastic material that stretches around the waist can become a bit overstretched with time and might not hold out as well. It never gets to the point where it feels like it’s going to slide off but it can slide around a little more after extended wear then it would at the start. That said, simple actions like pulling it up and down don’t cause any weakness and can be done numerous times unhindered.


Durability Rating (wet): 8

The Depend Real-Fit is generally quite durable in both its wet and dry state. I wouldn’t say there’s a substantial difference. Like the dry state, I did find that over time the flexible material holding it up can start to lose some of its elasticity and may result in a slight sag. I wouldn’t say that was too noticeable, but if you ever got into a state where it was near capacity when wet it may start pulling down the underwear. The only other thing I noticed was perhaps a slight amount of perspiration through the cloth-like backsheet. It was hard to tell for sure if that was really coming through the backsheet or just slipped around the leg gathers but I did notice a slight amount of moisture at times. Otherwise, the padding held up very well when wet without any obvious clumping or tearing to speak of.

3.4 Depend Real-Fit Dry Test Deterioration


Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 2.5 cm (1"), 3 cm (1.2")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 2.5 cm (1"), 2.5 cm (1")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3 cm (1.2"), 2.5 cm (1")

Profile Discretion Rating: 10

The Depend Real-Fit has a slim profile that’s virtually indistinguishable from regular underwear. It has a slight rise above the waist but the material just looks like a regular underwear waistband. It’s not the most snug fitting, however, because it’s so thin it will fold into whatever you’re wearing above it. I doubt you could get much more discreet than this, thus the top rating.

4.1 Depend Real-Fit Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Depend Real-Fit Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 10

It would be hard to beat this protective underwear in terms of noise discretion. I never noticed much noise at all when sitting, standing and walking. The backsheet is a flexible cloth-like material that produces very little resistance. The textured material may even dampen what little sound the moisture impermeable backsheet above the padding could produce. You’re highly unlikely to notice any noise from this underwear.

4.3 Depend Real-Fit Noise Profile
 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 7

For its rather limited absorbency, the Depend Real-Fit seems to have padding that’s well suited to locking away odors. It’s highly resistant to surface dampness and I can’t say I noticed odors during testing (though once again, this underwear will not manage a full wetting without leaks). That said, the highly breathable design and rather loose fit would make it easy for any odors that form to escape.


Want to give the Depend Real-Fit a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Depend Real-Fit affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.