Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: A diaper review - Pampers Underjams

  1. #1

    Default A diaper review - Pampers Underjams

    This is a first review of the Pampers Underjams I'm trying. I think I'll give more updates as I'll try them more.

    It's been a long time I've heard of Underjams (either positive or negative reviews) but I never got the opportunity to try them. I wear almost everyday Drynites / Goodnites (all kinds : L/XL, S/M boys & girls) and I'm happy with them but I'm open to new products

    I had no other choice to choose the S/M girl version which was the only ones available at that moment in stores (the L/XL size seems to never be available here in France).
    It's a 10-pack so I didn't care that much if they didn't fit at all. But considering I sometimes wear the S/M version of Goodnites, that was certainly ok.

    I weigh 47kg (103 lbs), have a 29 waist (I mostly wear 28 trousers), and a rather "small one" and it's an euphemism (sorry about the details, but it does matter when trying a diaper).

    The first impression when unpacking them: they smell the same as Drynites / Goodnites and the outside is as soft. As for Goodnites, 2 designs are offered in a pack : one with an overall white design, and the other one with a pink design. Both are cute

    I picked the white design and I then tried to put one carefully on me so that it doesn't rip. It seemed all okay when it was on with no near risk of ripping.
    One thing I really liked right off the bat is that they have a very low waist band when compared to Goodnites : they DO look like pants, there are no angles on how they are cut. I'm very surprised about it, and I'm sure that even the L/XL version is not much bigger.
    It feels even a bit strange for me, as I'm used to have my butt totally covered by the absorbing part of the diaper.
    So they are really discreet (no noise as well), even more than the Goodnites, and it's something important to me. Even when bending there's virtually no risk to be "caught".

    On the inside part, it feels very comfortable, either dry or wet. When wet, it actually doesn't feel wet. The diaper bulks a bit more than Goodnites but nothing to worry much about concerning discretion, and that even feels nice between the legs
    They surprisingly don't feel very small on me, although the L/XL size would of course fit me a bit better.

    So far I've been pretty pleased about the absorbency. I've tried two of them, and they didn't leak after having worn them during 4 / 5 hours without going to pee on the toilets. The key thing is that due to my small bladder I have a slow flow and no big accidents.

    Tomorrow will be the first day wearing them in "real life" : going outside longer with them, pulling them up and down from time to time when I go to the toilets, walking, going upstairs, … well living!
    I'll be careful to check on a regular basis that they are not about to leak or to rip and I'll keep you posted!

    (and sorry about my English!)
    Last edited by Mickael75; 21-Dec-2012 at 20:42.

  2. #2


    Thanks for the review! I might have to try these out if the stores run out of Goodnites! You live in france? Your english seems almost too good! But anyways, how are they holding up for you? And do you think they would hold heavy wettings? If so, how many? Also, I've heard many stories of the sides ripping.

  3. #3


    I'm very pleased with their absorbency, they hold much more than I would have expected, very impressive especially when you think I'm trying the S/M size.
    But don't forget I don't flood them, I always have small accidents. So I can't tell how they would handle heavy wettings, but they would probably leak maybe even from the first one.

    The good thing is that even when having an accident when standing up or being sited, the liquid seams to be absorbed by the whole diaper, even the front size.

    On the downside, I have the impression that odor control is not as good as it could be. When having my breakfast this morning with my Underjams under my pyjama, I could notice a very slight smell, which I don't notice with my Drynites.

    Concerning the ripping sides, I'll tell you more about it later when I'll have tried them more.

    (and yeah, I live in France)

  4. #4


    The last time I worn them was when they first came out. (yea that forever ago) The loved the everything about, the absorbency, capacity, style ( the boys), the descreetness, the feeling, all tho the L/XL was tad smaller then the goodnites if fit fine. The main thing that I hate was the sides starts to rip. thats why I don't buy them. But want to know did they fixed the ripping problem? Just wondering

  5. #5


    The only problem I've had with Underjams is that they tear easily for me at the sides....I am of average build, so it might just be that I am "too big" to wear them. The goodnites, however, I have no problems with.

  6. #6


    As promised, I give some updates about my trial of Underjams.

    During the last few days, I tried them in "real life", I mean when I don't stay much at home.
    And I'm totally impressed by the Underjams. They are veeery comfortable, it feels very soft inside, and their absorbency impressed me a lot.

    Sides do rip easily, but that's no problem if you wear boxers on as I did. Boxers cover totally the diaper, making it totally unseeable even when bending, and that's a huge positive thing when compared to Goodnites.
    With the boxers on (for girls, underpants would help as much I guess), sides don't rip at all. I wouldn't recommend wearing without real underwar though.

    I wore my Underjams during hours walking and moving a lot, and they did perfectly the job, protecting me from accidents, very comfortable and discreet.
    I even decided not to change for longer than I should have to try their capacity (it's winter and night, so I didn't care much if they leaked), and I was very surprised, I could have many more accidents than I would have thought and without even feeling wet. I ended up having a very small leak on one of the sides which didn't even wet my pants, only my boxers, and that was after having worn the same diaper during 6 hours.

    When I got back home I could noticed that the diaper becomes bulkier than Goodnites (a couple of centimeters thickness at the crotch, and a rounded shape on the front) but it remains discreet, especially with the boxers on.

    Don't forget I'm trying the S/M girl version, so the L/XL would be even better I guess. I don't know if there is any difference with the boy version, apart from the design.
    And don't forget I'm small and have several small accidents, not big accidents at one time.

    The bad thing about them is that sides can rip as many mentioned, which is a problem that can be solved wearing real underwear on top of Underjams. This means I can't pull down and up my diaper when going to the toilets either to pee (so that I can keep longer my diaper) or for the other one. But as I now don't bother much going to the loo for peeing and tend to only rely on my diaper, that's not a major issue.

    To sum it up:
    ++ Absorbency
    + Comfortable
    + A bit cheaper than Goodnites
    + Nice design
    + Totally discreet (low waist)
    - Sides can easily rip.
    - May smell a bit more

Similar Threads

  1. Pampers Underjams
    By xxbabywannabexx in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13-Jul-2012, 17:57
  2. Pampers Underjams waist sizes?
    By DPLV in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30-Oct-2011, 19:30
  3. Trying Out Pampers Underjams
    By Pramrider in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 23-Oct-2008, 12:45
  4. Pampers underjams
    By annierighthurr in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2008, 12:55
  5. NEW Pampers Underjams
    By diapeybabybrian in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24-Apr-2008, 21:21

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.