Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Mainstream Eating Guidance, 1960
AnnPT77
Posts: 35,063 Member
There are several threads now with some speculation about mainstream eating in the 1950s/60s. I'm going to post this as a separate thread because it may be of historic interest to others. The images are from a book, "Family Meals and Hospitality", by Lewis/Peckham/Hovey, 1960 edition. It was my high school Home Economics class book. 
It used 7 food groups, not intended to be exhaustive:
This is breakfast:
Lunch:
And dinner:
This is a a picture of daily menus, with some interesting hints about expected lifestyle (like the thermos bottle). Note the comment that foods outside the basic 7 groups will also be used.
FWIW.
It used 7 food groups, not intended to be exhaustive:
This is breakfast:
Lunch:
And dinner:
This is a a picture of daily menus, with some interesting hints about expected lifestyle (like the thermos bottle). Note the comment that foods outside the basic 7 groups will also be used.
FWIW.
18
Replies
-
More fun from home ec book, from 1960, a dark age when (posters on other threads allege) people didn't know why some people got fat:
20 -
7 -
1960 book, 1944 research data:
6 -
And apparently it's true that nonsense never changes:
16 -
THANK YOU3
-
I'm just impressed that you still have that book!
I was in first grade in 1960. Funny how the basics haven't changed.5 -
...and by "funny" I mean, it ain't rocket surgery.
Thanks for doing this!4 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm just impressed that you still have that book!
I was in first grade in 1960. Funny how the basics haven't changed.
I not only have the book, I still use it: It's a very good ultra-basic cookbook, too, with basic steps and "food science 101" tips that most recipes assume you just know, tables of substitutions/equivalencies, etc.
I haven't looked at the dietary advice part in decades, so was vastly amused by things like the "myths".
They should teach this stuff in school! Oh, wait: They did.
P.S. I was probably in first grade in 1960, too. Born 1955, kindergarten at age 4. Precocious, I guess. Home ec class was around 1969-70, using the 1960 book. I don't know whether those were slower times in publishing, or whether the book's date is down to the school being in a rural poverty area. The school owned the textbooks; my copy is one my mom bought me for (I think) Christmas because I wanted it for reference. 9 -
Seems this should be required reading (with some food updates to suit modern tastes in basics). I'm really impressed with it!5
-
This is brilliant! Though, that breakfast would have me covered in eczema in no time
I am a big fan of the bit where we can have two cups of ice cream a day 9 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »
I am a big fan of the bit where we can have two cups of ice cream a day
I did not see that part!
Time Machine, please to take me to 1960.
To be fair, I could eat tow cups of ice cream a day and get away with it all the way up until I was about 35.
6 -
I was not alive in 1960. We still use my wife's "Practical Cookery" from college, Texas Women's University, and her favorite high school teacher was her Home Ec. teacher.
And she can't cook to save her life.2 -
Ah the good old "common sense" days. I miss them
<reaches for raspberry keytones soaked in pregnant yack urine>12 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »This is brilliant! Though, that breakfast would have me covered in eczema in no time
I am a big fan of the bit where we can have two cups of ice cream a day
That "ice cream and seafood" thing, tho. I'm just not feeling shrimp, lobster or salmon paired with ice cream.
Decent enough info for the most part. Although those protein recommendations were sure low.1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »This is brilliant! Though, that breakfast would have me covered in eczema in no time
I am a big fan of the bit where we can have two cups of ice cream a day
That "ice cream and seafood" thing, tho. I'm just not feeling shrimp, lobster or salmon paired with ice cream.
Decent enough info for the most part. Although those protein recommendations were sure low.
Myself, I found it interesting that the calorie recommendations seem relatively high, in my region, compared to current calculators: 1800 at age 65, 128 pounds.
Protein is not that far from current USDA, 0.8 for each 2 pounds now, so 51.2g for the 128lb in this book's table, but these days usually pinned at 46g for women vs. 58g in this book's table. (I agree with you that all of that is too low in reality, BTW - I shoot for 100g+ at 120lb ideal weight).2 -
Love this, since I started high school in 1960. My high school didn't offer home economics, so this book is new to me.
The calorie recommendations do seem high.1 -
Thank you for posting, I enjoyed reading it!1
-
Is 5'9" the average height of men? My brain got stuck on the 154 lbs for men column.0
-
Fun thread!3
-
Fascinating. Thank you for taking the time to share!1
-
Thanks for sharing!
I wonder how and why we deviated from CICO to "special diets/magic diets" lol1 -
Thanks for sharing!
I wonder how and why we deviated from CICO to "special diets/magic diets" lol
We never deviated. In the 50s there were potions that helped you gain/lose as wanted. Gain if you were too skinny, which was a real concern to women in the era of the curvy bombshell or lose if you had tipped into the chubster not bombshell category. Amphetamines in particular were heavily advertised.4 -
The average height for men today (from measurements taken in 2011-2014, with 69% of the whole US male population measured) is still only 5'9. It's 5'10 for African American men, but only 3.4% of the US African American male population were measured, so it's a little less accurate. For Hispanic/Latino men it's 5'8 (4.4% measured) and 5'10 for non-Hispanic white men (17.1% measured).
People aren't as tall as you might think... you see tall people everywhere but you also see short people everywhere. I'm above average for British women at 5'7 (average is 5'4) but almost all of my friends my age (22, both male and female) are at or below average. We balance each other out. Since older people are also included in such calculations, the average will probably remain roughly the same for some time to come - though my stepmum is 5'8 and she's 74. Tall people have always existed... my great grandad, born in the late 1800s, was 6'3!
I agree with others saying that the calorie recommendations are pretty high. Perhaps it's because cars weren't nearly as common back then, and you walked or cycled to most places? People led much more active lifestyles. If I ate the recommended calories from this book I'd definitely gain weight.5 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »
The average height for men today (from measurements taken in 2011-2014, with 69% of the whole US male population measured) is still only 5'9. It's 5'10 for African American men, but only 3.4% of the US African American male population were measured, so it's a little less accurate. For Hispanic/Latino men it's 5'8 (4.4% measured) and 5'10 for non-Hispanic white men (17.1% measured).
People aren't as tall as you might think... you see tall people everywhere but you also see short people everywhere. I'm above average for British women at 5'7 (average is 5'4) but almost all of my friends my age (22, both male and female) are at or below average. We balance each other out. Since older people are also included in such calculations, the average will probably remain roughly the same for some time to come - though my stepmum is 5'8 and she's 74. Tall people have always existed... my great grandad, born in the late 1800s, was 6'3!
I agree with others saying that the calorie recommendations are pretty high. Perhaps it's because cars weren't nearly as common back then, and you walked or cycled to most places? People led much more active lifestyles. If I ate the recommended calories from this book I'd definitely gain weight.
Thank you, that's helpful information about heights.
And yes, people were more active - many fewer daily-life tasks were automated or machine assisted, and sedentary hobbies far less ubiquitous. (Reading is the only one I can think of, and even those people were holding a book and turning pages, not just thumb-touching. TV immersion as a hobby was unusual, even though TV was starting to be in most homes.)
About cars, though: In my part of the US (and I suspect most of the rest of the US, outside of dense cities, which fewer lived in then), adults did not walk or ride bikes. It would've been laughably eccentric.
The 1960s were the height of car culture. Gas was getting down to 16-25 cents a gallon, which was cheap even then. There were gas "price wars" where prices were driven down, and there were frequently promotions where you got a premium (towels or glassware were common) with a fill-up (sometimes less). People went on drives for entertainment, like a couple of hours or so driving around the county with the family on a Sunday afternoon just for fun, not really heading for a destination.
It was a different world. Much more movement, large and small, at home and work (not necessarily vigorous, but nearly constant). Think about what you do in a day, and how it would've been done in 1960: File cabinets in file rooms, no permanent press clothes so decent people ironed everything (unless rich enough for servants), mostly no self powered appliances, few riding lawn mowers, . . . . I could go on.
But cars, here, were standard transport - more than now, perhaps (I hesitate only because we travel farther and more frequently now - cars for sure were used more for daily local transport by adults then than they are now, vs. walking or bikes).2 -
Fun read! My mother used to have a similar book of my grandmother's from when she had home ec in the 40's! I don't think she kept it through all the house moves, though.1
-
Awesome read! Thanks for taking the time to post!1
-
What stands out to me is how much more active people must have been back when these recommendations were written. I'm 5'10", 150 lbs, male in my mid 30's with a TDEE of ~3000 calories, but I also run 50 miles per week and bike for an hour a week to reach that. When I'm sedentary, I maintain at 2300 calories/day which is still higher than MFP predicts due to my fidgety nature. I work in an office sitting at a computer the rest of my time though and even walking to the furthest bathroom in my office I would only get 3000 steps a day if not for my deliberate exercise.6 -
Looks like one can still get a copy for about $5: https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000OO3AX6/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=3
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions