Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

1980s definatly, and back..Why were people more fit, toned and healthy Looking?

12346»

Replies

  • Speakeasy76Speakeasy76 Member Posts: 308 Member Member Posts: 308 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    Gym class in the 60s, needless to say it doesn't look like this today :


    I don't know, my kids do things like Tabata workouts in their gym class and actually try to make being physically active something fun, and alternate that with teaching them about how to be all-around healthy...something that we certainly didn't have when I was in elementary school.
  • seltzermint555seltzermint555 Member Posts: 10,488 Member Member Posts: 10,488 Member
    ythannah wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    In the 1980s and before, people were required to move more in their jobs and daily lives (less automation, less market penetration of the automation that did exist). They also moved more, on average, via leisure-time recreation in the pre-internet/fewer-screens world of the time. In the 1980s and before, the 24x7 ubiquitous availability of gazillions of snacks was not even close to what it is now, and there was less social expectation/acceptance of people eating or drinking nearly constantly in virtually all situations.

    The McDonalds here used to close at 10 PM. Now the drive through is 24 hour. No drive through back then, you had to park your car and walk inside to get takeout. When I was in high school we would walk about a mile to go there occasionally, probably burned half the extra calories we ate.

    I had NO CLUE about how CICO worked when I was in college in the mid 90s, nor any clue about calorie content of foods. My friends and I used to go to (no alcohol) clubs for ska shows and would dance and sweat like mad, for literally hours. Then we wound up walking around a mile to McDonald's and I'd get a quarter pounder w/ cheese and small french fry with honey mustard to dip. I was already overweight at the time and didn't understand how I could eat that and not gain tons of weight since it was supposed to be so terrible for me. Looking back I probably could have had a cherry pie too. Makes me laugh!

    This is really not a well thought out comment, so beware...but I feel like today it's considered acceptable and "cool" for pretty young teenage girls to eat Chick-Fil-A, pizza, show off their venti Frappuccinos and the like. Back in the 80s and even 90s it seemed like young women pretended they basically did not eat, ever. Which is also weird. But just a thought.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 18,745 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,745 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    Gym class in the 60s, needless to say it doesn't look like this today :


    Yeah. Sure.

    That's 100% not what any gym class I ever saw or participated in, in the 1960s, looked like. Not even remotely. The 1960s footage there, that's film from a poster-child program, and a propaganda piece, basically. Kennedy had this big Presidential Fitness Program with standards and stuff; I suspect this is propaganda material for that. I'm sure real life looked like that in a few places, but I'm quite certain that's far from any kind of norm.

    In gym classes in the 1960s - which is when I was in junior high & the first part of high school - we played dodge ball, volley ball, did some sloppy calisthenics, ran around the gym (it didn't look like that when we did it, either 😆) and that sort of thing. The boys did a little bit more muscular stuff in their gym classes, like trying to do rope climbing, but it wasn't pretty. The guys in your film look like a boot camp. The guys in our gym . . . didn't. Not close.

    Some of the farm kids were really strong, pretty fit. The average male student looked nothing like the guys in that film, wouldn't have been able to keep up At. All.

    Fewer obese kids then? Yup. Fit, six-packs, whole groups doing synchronized gymnastics moves? Nope. Nope. Nope.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 18,745 Member Member, Premium Posts: 18,745 Member
    Just for fun, anonymized photos from my 1970 high school year book, 2 from gym class (boys playing basketball), one of the quite-successful wrestling team. I know the photos are bad, photo tech was not so fab, and these are photos of photos. But even in the bad photos, it's pretty clear that the gym class boys are just skinny kids, not the ripped boys from the film above, and even the successful wrestling team members aren't exactly hyper-muscular. Would current equivalents look doughier? Could be.

    k1s2p78gtlu5.jpg
    596zqqdthmer.jpg
    v7x8x0glh2kv.jpg
  • nooshi713nooshi713 Member Posts: 4,327 Member Member Posts: 4,327 Member
    For those arguing that technology, convenience etc has made people fat...countries like Japan, China, India, Thailand have in so many ways, more conveniences and better tech than the US..but its cultural and its personal...people eat less in Asia... Rice and Roti are a huge portion of daily food but yet people are mostly slim. There is this whole " what will people think!" society as well...whereas in the UK and US, the usual mantra is " Dont tell me what to do".

    Yep. They eat less.

    America supersizes everything.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member, Premium Posts: 24,806 Member Member, Premium Posts: 24,806 Member
    JustaNoob wrote: »
    JustaNoob wrote: »
    JustaNoob wrote: »
    JustaNoob wrote: »
    I believe a lot of technological advances have helped us and hurt us in regards to weight. In the past, women worked hard at home with very few conveniences and that burned a ton of calories. Men also had fewer conveniences in the work place.

    Technology has grown a ton and so has the demand for convenience items as more women have entered the work force. Now both men and women are working, but the need for home upkeep hasn't changed.

    Technology that helps us burn fewer calories:
    Cell phones-- You don't have to walk to a wall phone or pay phone if you are stranded.
    Dishwashers-- Throw it in and let it wash.
    Digital books, movies, music-- you never have to walk into a store, you can just order from your couch
    Grocery services-- You don't have to shop for groceries
    Precooked/precut food-- You don't have to do all that, you can buy it premade.
    Robot Vacuums- Never sweep or mop again.
    Riding lawn mowers--Just sit and go.
    Fast Food-- Just grab and go.

    I think all of these little things add up. And of course, I wouldn't expect people to work 8 hours AND do all this from scratch. It just means we have to be more intentional than what previous generations did, simply because their daily duties helped them to burn more calories.

    Note: Women working isn't new. Historically, many women were engaged in the workforce as maids/household help or in industries like agriculture, textiles, retail, and food production. The picture we have of women staying at home is a pretty small slice of history and narrowly focused on an economically fortunate group of women. Women have always worked.

    Women have always worked, but they didn't always get a paycheck. Yes, women have been engaged in the workforce but I disagree that it's been more a fortunate "slice" that worked in the home. I think there may be a breakdown in how each one describes the workforce vs. the home. I think at home work was equally as demanding and important as going to a factory, and could include things like working the field and wrapping things up for resale, etc.

    Either way, just because women have always worked does not mean they haven't historically been held responsible (in pretty much every culture) to care for the home--not that I support this idea. It is both man and woman's responsibility to do what they see fit in their relationships. My argument is that technology and convenience items has helped to relieve women (and men) of that burden.

    So even though my mom was a single mother who worked 2 jobs, she was still taxed with the responsibility of coming home to burn a ton of calories and work more by cooking and cleaning. As technology advanced and convenience items became more available (when we could afford them) she was able to come home and rest more. So when people say "well my mom worked outside of the home but was still skinny in the 80s" I think there are a ton of small things their mom still had to to when getting home that made a big difference in her weight.

    You wrote that "more women have entered the work force." My point is that women have always been in the work force. In addition to caring for their home (which I agree is work), historically women have been engaged in the economy in other ways. The concept of a household where the man earns all the household money and the woman takes care of the home doesn't describe the economic reality of many women in history. Women traditionally have contributed to the household economy in multiple ways -- by working in family businesses, by going to the homes of others to work, by being enslaved workers, by going to factories or job sites to work, or by taking in work (laundry, sewing, wetnursing, etc).

    I understand your argument about household tasks, I'm just pointing out that our idea of women's economic participation tends to be rather narrow in that many of us imagine that women working is somewhat new.

    Statistically, women's participation in the labor force HAVE increased over the years in the US. This is a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    jfpnx2jm93eq.png

    I understand your point about women always contributing to the household economy. I think that maybe cases of enslaved workers, families business, and taking in work, may not have shown up on this list in the 60's.

    However, the OP asked about the 80s and I would think that these numbers would be more accurate. I stand by my previous statement-- more women HAVE entered the workforce.

    This goes back to what I was saying about "a small slice of history." There are more women in the labor force than there were in 1950, but 1950 domestic/labor arrangements are not representative of how women lived throughout history.

    But I wasn't not referring to history as a whole, nor did I see the OP referring to that. I was thinking about the 80s. I even thought through my "technology list" and included things from a more recent history rather than advances from the 1950s, like TV and radio.

    Respectfully, I think your "note" made assumptions about my view of history and nitpicked a small thing I said (that wasn't even incorrect) rather than my overall argument.

    I was more responding to the comment "Now both men and women are working" with some historical context, but I'm sorry I didn't communicate it well.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member, Premium Posts: 24,806 Member Member, Premium Posts: 24,806 Member
    JustaNoob wrote: »
    JustaNoob wrote: »
    I believe a lot of technological advances have helped us and hurt us in regards to weight. In the past, women worked hard at home with very few conveniences and that burned a ton of calories. Men also had fewer conveniences in the work place.

    Technology has grown a ton and so has the demand for convenience items as more women have entered the work force. Now both men and women are working, but the need for home upkeep hasn't changed.

    Technology that helps us burn fewer calories:
    Cell phones-- You don't have to walk to a wall phone or pay phone if you are stranded.
    Dishwashers-- Throw it in and let it wash.
    Digital books, movies, music-- you never have to walk into a store, you can just order from your couch
    Grocery services-- You don't have to shop for groceries
    Precooked/precut food-- You don't have to do all that, you can buy it premade.
    Robot Vacuums- Never sweep or mop again.
    Riding lawn mowers--Just sit and go.
    Fast Food-- Just grab and go.

    I think all of these little things add up. And of course, I wouldn't expect people to work 8 hours AND do all this from scratch. It just means we have to be more intentional than what previous generations did, simply because their daily duties helped them to burn more calories.

    Note: Women working isn't new. Historically, many women were engaged in the workforce as maids/household help or in industries like agriculture, textiles, retail, and food production. The picture we have of women staying at home is a pretty small slice of history and narrowly focused on an economically fortunate group of women. Women have always worked.

    Women have always worked, but they didn't always get a paycheck. Yes, women have been engaged in the workforce but I disagree that it's been more a fortunate "slice" that worked in the home. I think there may be a breakdown in how each one describes the workforce vs. the home. I think at home work was equally as demanding and important as going to a factory, and could include things like working the field and wrapping things up for resale, etc.

    Either way, just because women have always worked does not mean they haven't historically been held responsible (in pretty much every culture) to care for the home--not that I support this idea. It is both man and woman's responsibility to do what they see fit in their relationships. My argument is that technology and convenience items has helped to relieve women (and men) of that burden.

    So even though my mom was a single mother who worked 2 jobs, she was still taxed with the responsibility of coming home to burn a ton of calories and work more by cooking and cleaning. As technology advanced and convenience items became more available (when we could afford them) she was able to come home and rest more. So when people say "well my mom worked outside of the home but was still skinny in the 80s" I think there are a ton of small things their mom still had to to when getting home that made a big difference in her weight.

    You wrote that "more women have entered the work force." My point is that women have always been in the work force. In addition to caring for their home (which I agree is work), historically women have been engaged in the economy in other ways. The concept of a household where the man earns all the household money and the woman takes care of the home doesn't describe the economic reality of many women in history. Women traditionally have contributed to the household economy in multiple ways -- by working in family businesses, by going to the homes of others to work, by being enslaved workers, by going to factories or job sites to work, or by taking in work (laundry, sewing, wetnursing, etc).

    I understand your argument about household tasks, I'm just pointing out that our idea of women's economic participation tends to be rather narrow in that many of us imagine that women working is somewhat new.

    Just adding one other category: working on the family farm (anything from tending the chickens and cows to working in the fields) (although I suppose it could fall under working in family businesses, but it's not the image that that phrase evokes in mind). My maternal grandmother tended chickens and milked cows helped on two-person jobs on the farm nearly her entire life. The idea that she wasn't in the workforce, but that my grandfather who was tending the field crops and the orchard was in the workforce, seems odd to me (I know that's not what you're saying, Jane).

    Yes, this is a great point. My maternal great-grandparents were farmers and my great-grandmother kept a huge garden to feed the family, cared for the animals, and helped with all the farm tasks. I was thinking of that sort of thing when I wrote that, but historically I'm sure so many American women did similar farming work that it is worth calling out.
Sign In or Register to comment.