why were people so skinny in the 70s?

Options
1212224262749

Replies

  • bennettinfinity
    bennettinfinity Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I keep reading about how people were more active because there was no Internet etc... People read books and newspapers. People still watched tv (even if it was 3 channels instead of 200). I mean, I'm sure that kids were more active by then, but most kids I see have a normal weight.

    I too also think that it has to do with portion control... or maybe the processed food we have now has more calories than it had then?

    Hard to say for me, I was born at the end of the 70s and in another country, so I have absolutely no clue how it was then versus now.

    From a kid's perspective, most homes only had one TV and 3-4 channels... there was almost no children's programming to speak of outside of Saturday morning cartoons. If you didn't like the boring shows your parents wanted to watch, you found something else to do. You played with the neighbor kids or siblings... Much less screen time for kids.
  • crabbybrianna
    crabbybrianna Posts: 344 Member
    Options
    I would just sit on the floor right in front of the tv so I didn’t have to get up and walk to change the channel or volume.
  • kpk54
    kpk54 Posts: 4,474 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    The baby boomers were in their twenties. Now they are geriatrics.

    If I could get out of my geri-chair I would come over a bop you, young lady. :)
  • Rocknut53
    Rocknut53 Posts: 1,794 Member
    Options
    I totally forgot about Koolaid, one packet of tasty powder, 1 cup of sugar in a pitcher of water...the standard beverage for many years because soda was too expensive to drink all the time. The thought of it gags me now.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    And as far as the scaremongering using HFCS as a bogeyman, HFCS is essentially bio-identical to sucrose as far as the body is concerned

    This is also true (sucrose is 50/50 glucose/fructose and HFCS 45/55). It's just also not true that it's in everything today.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Drinking huge portions of soda with every meal wasn't common until more recent decades, it was recognized as being a treat. People now have habits of 2 litres a day or more.

    This has 0 to do with HFCS. Soda is not cheaper now; it's actually still quite expensive due to how much is spent on things like marketing, vs. the cost to make it.

    It's also not common in MOST families for kids to drink soda with meals, I'd bet (none of my friends would serve soda regularly with meals). But it varies in different subcultures or social circles or whatever. Even now MOST people don't drink huge amounts of soda, but the thing is that the smaller portion who drink a lot of soda drink a whole lot.

    The idea that drinking those amounts would be fine if they just drank coke with sugar makes no sense.
    As for fast food, even in the 80s I remember a burger being a once every couple of weeks thing at most, while I work with people now who raise their kids on McDonalds and Church's Chicken and see nothing unusual about it because they never ate a balanced meal at home themselves.

    I recall it being an occasional treat too, and most of my friends with kids still treat it that way. Are there people who do not? Sure -- cultural change, again, but nothing to do with fast food not being available back then, it was.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I keep reading about how people were more active because there was no Internet etc... People read books and newspapers. People still watched tv (even if it was 3 channels instead of 200). I mean, I'm sure that kids were more active by then, but most kids I see have a normal weight.

    I too also think that it has to do with portion control... or maybe the processed food we have now has more calories than it had then?

    Hard to say for me, I was born at the end of the 70s and in another country, so I have absolutely no clue how it was then versus now.

    From a kid's perspective, most homes only had one TV and 3-4 channels... there was almost no children's programming to speak of outside of Saturday morning cartoons. If you didn't like the boring shows your parents wanted to watch, you found something else to do. You played with the neighbor kids or siblings... Much less screen time for kids.

    This was my experience too. During the day all that was on were soap operas, news and talk shows. And IDK if this was true in cities, but in the rural area where I lived most families watched only one channel regularly because one one would come in clearly without climbing up on the roof to rearrange the antenna.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I keep reading about how people were more active because there was no Internet etc... People read books and newspapers. People still watched tv (even if it was 3 channels instead of 200). I mean, I'm sure that kids were more active by then, but most kids I see have a normal weight.

    I too also think that it has to do with portion control... or maybe the processed food we have now has more calories than it had then?

    Hard to say for me, I was born at the end of the 70s and in another country, so I have absolutely no clue how it was then versus now.

    From a kid's perspective, most homes only had one TV and 3-4 channels... there was almost no children's programming to speak of outside of Saturday morning cartoons. If you didn't like the boring shows your parents wanted to watch, you found something else to do. You played with the neighbor kids or siblings... Much less screen time for kids.

    This was my experience too. During the day all that was on were soap operas, news and talk shows. And IDK if this was true in cities, but in the rural area where I lived most families watched only one channel regularly because one one would come in clearly without climbing up on the roof to rearrange the antenna.

    I don't recall our reception being bad (although I'm sure my standards were different), but the 3-4 channels, most of it being boring most of the time, was indeed my experience. The well-known PBS shows and Saturday cartoons in the morning.
  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,573 Member
    Options
    I actually watched a lot of TV when I was a kid in the 70s because we were able to get a channel out of New York City - WNYW, which had a great variety of interesting programs on that were not on the 3 local channels we could get.

    There were no soap operas on this channel. It was all syndicated old sit coms and stuff - a non stop barrage of things like: Gilligan's Island, the Ghost & Mrs Muir, Love American Style, The Partridge Family, The Brady Bunch, Lost in Space, The Flying Nun, Petticoat Junction, Green Acres, I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith Show, The Flintstones, Looney Tunes, Yogi Bear. - and my favorite favorite, LOST IN SPACE.

    I was an only child, lived in the country, no neighbors my age...I had nobody to play with. I did play outside a good deal sometimes, but never doing anything too active except ride my Big Wheel when I was little - and some sledding in the winter till I got too cold and wanted to come in.

    So I watched TV. And ate junk food - but I was never overweight until in my late 20's early 30's (post pregnancy). Interesting.