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
Options
Replies
-
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
-
-
Wow this is cool to see, thanks for posting!0
-
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »
No...That's all wrong. It should be cheese (pref mature cheddar) AND peanut butter together, on any sort of toast. Try it. It's worth the calories.2 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »
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.
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).
I too was a child in the 60's but lived in the city (Brooklyn, NY). Many families in our community could not afford cars and if they did, they only had one. We didn't own a car when I was younger but when I got a little older my father got a company car that we could use at times. But, by the time we were a family of eight, it was next to impossible for us to go too far in the car. Thus, walking was a way of life. We walked back and forth to school twice a day (came home from lunch). We walked to church and activities like Girl Scouts. We walked to our friends houses. We walked to stores, the doctor, and dentist. We walked a mile each to go to the library. We walked 1 to 1 1/2 miles each way to visit relatives. When we weren't walking somewhere, we were playing in the streets, much of which involved physical activity. It was a very different lifestyle from what my daughters had, and what my grandchildren have today! And, there is no question, that more calories were burned.
Now I feel old reading this
0 -
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.
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).
I too was a child in the 60's but lived in the city (Brooklyn, NY). Many families in our community could not afford cars and if they did, they only had one. We didn't own a car when I was younger but when I got a little older my father got a company car that we could use at times. But, by the time we were a family of eight, it was next to impossible for us to go too far in the car. Thus, walking was a way of life. We walked back and forth to school twice a day (came home from lunch). We walked to church and activities like Girl Scouts. We walked to our friends houses. We walked to stores, the doctor, and dentist. We walked a mile each to go to the library. We walked 1 to 1 1/2 miles each way to visit relatives. When we weren't walking somewhere, we were playing in the streets, much of which involved physical activity. It was a very different lifestyle from what my daughters had, and what my grandchildren have today! And, there is no question, that more calories were burned.
Now I feel old reading this
Yup, people walked in the dense cities, as you say. Many still do.
I grew up outside a small town, where my dad also grew up. He walked 4 miles to high school, and around a mile and half to country school for K-8th grade (1920s-1930s).
I was driven to the same 3-room country school for K-2nd grade (no buses) then rode a bus to the town school where he'd gone to high school. (Most days the bus ride probably took about as long as his walk - circuitous bus route). The town kids mostly walked or rode bikes to school. (1959-1973).
Judging from lives of younger cousins who still live there, these days country kids still ride the bus (some driven), town kids too close for bus service are mostly driven.
People say children were safer walking/biking then. Per US crime stats, that's false.
And "old" is a wonderful thing. Revel in it! (I love it. As a cancer widow and cancer survivor, I know what the actual alternative is, and it's not "young". ) 10 -
The calories may seem higher than today, but I bet people were more active - less technology to help with those household chores!2
-
That was fun to read. I love how all the meals pictured include some citrus and the photos are sponsored by Sunkist.
3 -
I didn't get past pumpkie pie with ice cream at dinner. Yum! I'm in!2
-
hey, look at that. back in 1960, five years before i was born, 128 was a normal or healthy weight for someone like me at 5'4".
yet, by the time i had actually grown as tall as 5'4", it was '100 pounds for the first five feet of height, and after that only five pounds MAX per additional inch [plus some fancy-pantsery about your wrist circumference and such stuff]'. so i was only 'supposed' to weigh 120 in 1979, when thin waify women were so very 'in'.
i like how it classes 'lab work' and 'singing' at the same burn. back in the day, if they had had mfp, we'd have dozens of people per year going 'so, if i sing all the time i'm at work can i log that separately? what if i only hum?'
the other thing that's interesting is the calorie allowances. it got me started on thinking of all the things that were just normally done 'by hand' back in the day, and which there's an app or an appliance for now.3 -
Wow. I have the maintenance calories of a 65 year old 128lb woman at 32 and 140lbs. Go me.6
-
canadianlbs wrote: »hey, look at that. back in 1960, five years before i was born, 128 was a normal or healthy weight for someone like me at 5'4".
yet, by the time i had actually grown as tall as 5'4", it was '100 pounds for the first five feet of height, and after that only five pounds MAX per additional inch [plus some fancy-pantsery about your wrist circumference and such stuff]'. so i was only 'supposed' to weigh 120 in 1979, when thin waify women were so very 'in'.
i like how it classes 'lab work' and 'singing' at the same burn. back in the day, if they had had mfp, we'd have dozens of people per year going 'so, if i sing all the time i'm at work can i log that separately? what if i only hum?'
the other thing that's interesting is the calorie allowances. it got me started on thinking of all the things that were just normally done 'by hand' back in the day, and which there's an app or an appliance for now.
Yup. And that's without even accounting for more "doing" leisure activities then vs. "watching" ones now.
I was alive then. These things are at least in the low hundreds of calories a day, if you ask me. That plus ubiquitous snacky 24-hour convenience foods, and ya got yerself an obesity crisis.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions