Lord Byron's inadvisable celebrity diet

BerryH
BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
edited October 2024 in Chit-Chat
Just to show there's nothing new in the world of fad celebrity diets!
Lord Byron: The celebrity diet icon

Another new year and another host of celebrity dieters, but it's not a modern phenomenon. Lord Byron was one of first diet icons and helped kick off the public's obsession with how celebrities lose weight, says historian Louise Foxcroft.

There has never been any shortage of celebrities who have followed diets, endorsed them or tried to sell us one of their own devising, even back as far as the 1800s.

The "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" Lord Byron was thought of as the embodiment of the ethereal poet, but he actually had a "morbid propensity to fatten". Like today's celebrities, he worked hard to maintain his figure.

At Cambridge University, his horror of being fat led to a shockingly strict diet, partly to get thin and partly to keep his mind sharp. Existing on biscuits and soda water or potatoes drenched in vinegar, he wore woolly layers to sweat off the pounds and measured himself obsessively. Then he binged on huge meals, finishing off with a necessarily large dose of magnesia.

In 1806 Byron weighed 13st 12lbs (88kg), but he was under 9st by 1811 (57kg) - a huge weight loss of nearly 5st (32kg). We know all this from records at Berry Bros & Rudd, a wine merchants of St James's, London.

Here, stylish men-about-town weighed themselves on hanging scales, as personal bathroom scales were an early 20th Century phenomenon. The Regency dandy, Beau Brummell, weighed himself there over 40 times between 1815 and 1822. He went down from 12st 10lbs (81kg) to 10st 13lbs (69kg).

At the infamous Villa Diodati on Lake Geneva, in 1816, Byron was living on just a thin slice of bread and a cup of tea for breakfast and a light vegetable dinner with a bottle or two of seltzer water tinged with Vin de Grave. In the evening he stretched to a cup of green tea, but certainly took no milk or sugar.

To suppress the inevitable hunger pangs, he smoked cigars. By 1822, he had starved himself into a very poor state of health, even though he knew that obsessive dieting was "the cause of more than half our maladies".

Because of Byron's huge cultural influence, there was a great deal of worry about the effect his dieting was having on the youth of the day. Dr George Beard attacked the popular Victorian association between scanty eating and delicacy of mind because impressionable Romantics were restricting themselves to vinegar and rice to get the fashionably thin and pale look.

Personal cow

"Our young ladies," he wrote, "live all their growing girlhood in semi-starvation." This was for fear of "incurring the horror of disciples of Lord Byron", he added. It didn't help that Byron himself had suggested that "a woman should never be seen eating or drinking, unless it be lobster salad and champagne, the only truly feminine and becoming viands".

But his cruel double standards were exposed when, on ending his scandalous affair with the married Lady Caroline Lamb, who had become gaunt with grief, he quipped that he was "haunted by a skeleton".

Another excessively slim 19th Century celebrity was the beautiful and narcissistic Elisabeth von Wittelsbach - known as Sissi. She was empress consort of the Emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph I.

She developed an extraordinarily strict diet and exercise regime to help her cope with an intensely critical public gaze, evoking parallels with Princess Diana. Newspapers in the 1860s pored over her life and printed exaggerated stories about her.

Fat fears

Taller than her husband by several centimetres, she weighed a mere 7st 7lbs (48kg) and her waist, checked daily by her hairdresser, had to measure 19.5in (49.5cm) or she would not eat.

She exercised vigorously, resembling an outlandish bird as she hung from gymnastic rings in a black ostrich feather-trimmed gown. She also swallowed only emetics, laxatives, oranges, and thin broth or one glass of milk from her own personal cow.

Everyone was getting in on the diet act during the 19th Century, either slimming down or fattening up on the profits of their diets, apparatus, potions and powders. Even Nietzsche and Henry James dieted. Nietzsche tried a traditional restricted calorie diet and James went in for Fletcherism, an elaborate system of chewing each morsel of food several hundred times.

In the 1920s, Hollywood mass dieting really took off. Gayelord Hauser, an LA diet guru and Greta Garbo's lover, exploited the power of the movies. He released that "most of our high-priced movie stars are living in constant fear of losing their attractiveness and thereby their popularity... they simply can't afford to become fat and unattractive".

No diet was too expensive or drastic for them, or for the movie-going public who desperately wanted to be like them. The same can be said today with the global industry worth billions.

The downside of looking up to someone is being looked down upon. The distorted, even obsessive, thinking that characterises our relationship with celebrity can, it is said, be traced to the limbic system of our brains.

Food, sex and memory are all bedfellows in this, one of the oldest, most deeply buried structures in the cerebrum. It is not hard to see how these three fundamental elements become meshed in our perceptions of the celebrity bodies constantly on parade before us. The glimpse of a fat thigh or a double chin before it is air-brushed away can, after all, mean mass denunciation for those trying to elbow their way into the limelight.

There is always a new diet book in the best-seller lists nowadays. Most of them are recycled, re-hashes of previous fads, each one endorsed by a shiny celebrity or two whose "ideal" bodies betray hours of work and a lot of cash investment.

It is the same old line that we have always been sold - we too could be thinner, younger, more loved, if we would only buy whatever new, improved diet food or regime is on offer. And we still fall for it.

Louise Foxcroft is the author of [/i]Calories & Corsets[/i]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16351761

Replies

  • MrsSWW
    MrsSWW Posts: 1,585 Member
    Wow! That was really interesting, I assumed because they were wealthy they'd have been the gorging/tickling their throat with a feather type!
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    I rather like the idea of going to the wine merchants for a weigh-in! I also support that "a woman should never be seen eating or drinking, unless it be lobster salad and champagne, the only truly feminine and becoming viands", if only I had the budget!
  • MrsSWW
    MrsSWW Posts: 1,585 Member
    Hear hear! :drinker:
  • Oishii
    Oishii Posts: 2,675 Member
    How fascinating! It brings up so many interesting questions:

    How big a difference did seeing numbers on a scale make to unhealthy obsessions with weight loss?
    Did photography rather than portraiture lead to greater self-criticism?
    Was the media blamed then too?

    And lots more. Thanks for making me think, Berry!
  • whiskey9890
    whiskey9890 Posts: 653 Member
    did anybody see the diets that time forgot that was on channel 4 (uk) a couple of years ago, that was a really interesting series, taking 4 diets that had been all the range in the past hundred years or so and seeing their actual effectivness. i mention it as the one that worked best in the duration of the study was based on fletcherism, called the chew-chew diet, where each mouthful of food had to be chewed 35 times, the original diet didn't actually allow you to swallow your food you could only consume what would trickle down your throat when you tilted your head back anything else had to be spat out, obviously the people objected to this as being a gross and potentially unhealty (certainly mentaly) practice and they were permitted to swallow the chewed food as normal. the next best results were shown by the calorie controled diet. a very interesting program
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    I found that article this morning. Brilliant.
  • TheGoktor
    TheGoktor Posts: 1,138 Member
    did anybody see the diets that time forgot that was on channel 4 (uk) a couple of years ago, that was a really interesting series, taking 4 diets that had been all the range in the past hundred years or so and seeing their actual effectivness. i mention it as the one that worked best in the duration of the study was based on fletcherism, called the chew-chew diet, where each mouthful of food had to be chewed 35 times, the original diet didn't actually allow you to swallow your food you could only consume what would trickle down your throat when you tilted your head back anything else had to be spat out, obviously the people objected to this as being a gross and potentially unhealty (certainly mentaly) practice and they were permitted to swallow the chewed food as normal. the next best results were shown by the calorie controled diet. a very interesting program

    I saw that programme too, and you're right, it was very interesting. :smile: As a child, my grandmother (with very Edwardian values and ideas) always told me chew my food more, although I'm not sure what she'd have made of me chewing every mouthful a hundred times. Can you imagine how long Fletcherist mealtimes must have taken? And how horrible the sound of chewing must have been? Eek! :laugh:

    I saw the Byron thing, on one of Lucy Worsley's programmes last year. I seem to remember she was weighed on the same set of scales! Another article here:

    http://www.lucyworsley.com/regency/article-in-the-guardian-on-lord-byrons-obesity.html
    I rather like the idea of going to the wine merchants for a weigh-in! I also support that "a woman should never be seen eating or drinking, unless it be lobster salad and champagne, the only truly feminine and becoming viands", if only I had the budget!

    Agreed! I could live like that too!
    Did photography rather than portraiture lead to greater self-criticism?

    Interesting question because would the general populace have really been in a position to view that many portraits? How many would be going to galleries? And more importantly, would they have the time or the inclination? But with the advent of photography and newspapers/periodicals, I suspect that far more would be aspiring to be like 'their betters' (for want of a more suitable expression), and that surely, must be down to the media if not directly suggesting it, then at least implying such things. I do know that photo re-touching in the late 19th century was pretty common-place, and that many stars of stage and music-hall had their waists made to look smaller.

    BTW, contrary to popular misconception, most ladies and women of that time did not favour teeny corseted waists; however, as today, back then there was certainly a small number of people who *did* go in for tight-lacing, and of course, these are the ones who got noticed....the rest relied on Victorian Photoshopping! Oh, and no ribs were removed either - complete fallacy!
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Did photography rather than portraiture lead to greater self-criticism?

    Interesting question because would the general populace have really been in a position to view that many portraits? How many would be going to galleries? And more importantly, would they have the time or the inclination? But with the advent of photography and newspapers/periodicals, I suspect that far more would be aspiring to be like 'their betters' (for want of a more suitable expression), and that surely, must be down to the media if not directly suggesting it, then at least implying such things. I do know that photo re-touching in the late 19th century was pretty common-place, and that many stars of stage and music-hall had their waists made to look smaller.
    [/quote]My take on this is it's not the medium, it's what makes you look well-off in a certain era. In the 18th Century, no landowner or businessman worth his salt would want himself or his family to be depicted as skinny as it would imply he wasn't providing. Ruben's nudes displayed fertile flesh ripe for marrying and reproducing. However, for ascetic poets, the emaciated look showed you were beyond the boundaries of mere eating, drinking mortals.

    It's a similar deal with tans - once upon a time only poor people who worked on the land would have tans, but Coco Chanel made a tan popular in an era when it meant you were the a member of the leisured classes who could afford time off to holiday in exotic climes.

    Since the advent of photography, the aspirational figures happen to be those of celebrities who happen to be skinny as that's what gets them ahead in what passes for show-business in this day and age. If I have Angelina's figure I'll nab a Brad and have film roles thrust at me, for example.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    Fascinating! Lord Byron has always been one of my favorites!
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    did anybody see the diets that time forgot that was on channel 4 (uk) a couple of years ago, that was a really interesting series, taking 4 diets that had been all the range in the past hundred years or so and seeing their actual effectivness. i mention it as the one that worked best in the duration of the study was based on fletcherism, called the chew-chew diet, where each mouthful of food had to be chewed 35 times, the original diet didn't actually allow you to swallow your food you could only consume what would trickle down your throat when you tilted your head back anything else had to be spat out, obviously the people objected to this as being a gross and potentially unhealty (certainly mentaly) practice and they were permitted to swallow the chewed food as normal. the next best results were shown by the calorie controled diet. a very interesting program

    I saw that programme too, and you're right, it was very interesting. :smile: As a child, my grandmother (with very Edwardian values and ideas) always told me chew my food more, although I'm not sure what she'd have made of me chewing every mouthful a hundred times. Can you imagine how long Fletcherist mealtimes must have taken? And how horrible the sound of chewing must have been? Eek! :laugh:

    I saw the Byron thing, on one of Lucy Worsley's programmes last year. I seem to remember she was weighed on the same set of scales! Another article here:

    http://www.lucyworsley.com/regency/article-in-the-guardian-on-lord-byrons-obesity.html
    I rather like the idea of going to the wine merchants for a weigh-in! I also support that "a woman should never be seen eating or drinking, unless it be lobster salad and champagne, the only truly feminine and becoming viands", if only I had the budget!

    Agreed! I could live like that too!
    Did photography rather than portraiture lead to greater self-criticism?

    Interesting question because would the general populace have really been in a position to view that many portraits? How many would be going to galleries? And more importantly, would they have the time or the inclination? But with the advent of photography and newspapers/periodicals, I suspect that far more would be aspiring to be like 'their betters' (for want of a more suitable expression), and that surely, must be down to the media if not directly suggesting it, then at least implying such things. I do know that photo re-touching in the late 19th century was pretty common-place, and that many stars of stage and music-hall had their waists made to look smaller.

    BTW, contrary to popular misconception, most ladies and women of that time did not favour teeny corseted waists; however, as today, back then there was certainly a small number of people who *did* go in for tight-lacing, and of course, these are the ones who got noticed....the rest relied on Victorian Photoshopping! Oh, and no ribs were removed either - complete fallacy!

    Have you read the Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England? Very interesting on dress. It was always only the glamourous social flyers who dressed to show of their figures, and it has always been criticised by those too big or old to suit said fashions! That was as true for men as for women.
  • maab_connor
    maab_connor Posts: 3,927 Member

    Did photography rather than portraiture lead to greater self-criticism?

    this is a really good question. history is filled with instances where a portrait painter would tweak someone's appearance, or make the jewelery the focus of the painting, not the face (as with Henry 8's fourth -i think - wife). and since there weren't cars or trains for so long, the general population couldn't really look at the celebrities of the day.

    there's grant money in this question, i just KNOW it.
  • TheGoktor
    TheGoktor Posts: 1,138 Member
    All excellent points, Berry; however....
    If I have Angelina's figure I'll nab a Brad and have film roles thrust at me, for example.

    It's a little-known fact that Angelina actually stole *my* figure while I was asleep, and replaced it with her own lumpy one. :wink:
  • TheGoktor
    TheGoktor Posts: 1,138 Member
    Have you read the Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England? Very interesting on dress. It was always only the glamourous social flyers who dressed to show of their figures, and it has always been criticised by those too big or old to suit said fashions! That was as true for men as for women.

    I haven't Fredi, but I *have* been studying medieval social history for over 25 years (and more recently, early modern), of which, clothing forms a huge part. Quite apart from the various sumptuary laws which have been enacted, it's also interesting to note how 'fashion' filtered down through the classes, and changed to suit. A bit like couture filtering onto the high street.

    Also, often people would get to a certain age and almost lose their desire to be so fashionable, choosing instead, the type of clothing in which they were most comfortable (this is an area where so many re-enactors fall down!). I think that to a certain extent, this still holds true today. You can see this in some portraiture, although very often, the subjects were shown in fashionable and even allegorical clothing (few more so, I think, than Elizabeth I....notably the 'rainbow' portrait by Isaac Oliver); portraits were great PR tools!
    this is a really good question. history is filled with instances where a portrait painter would tweak someone's appearance, or make the jewelery the focus of the painting, not the face (as with Henry 8's fourth -i think - wife). and since there weren't cars or trains for so long, the general population couldn't really look at the celebrities of the day.

    Absolutely... as Henry was to discover to his chagrin when he actually met his new wife (Anne of Cleves); I believe he referred to her as looking like a horse! Despite annulling the marriage, she remained one of Henry's closest and most trusted friends, which is rather nice, I think....she was probably treated better than most of the women in his life!
  • kyle4jem
    kyle4jem Posts: 1,400 Member
    I saw this too on the BBC and I was intrigued by the following:
    In 1806 Byron weighed 13st 12lbs (88kg), but he was under 9st by 1811 (57kg) - a huge weight loss of nearly 5st (32kg). We know all this from records at Berry Bros & Rudd, a wine merchants of St James's, London.
    I wouldn't say that 5st (32kg) over 5 years was a "huge weight loss"... in fact it seems quite sustainable, however, unless Lord Byron was tiny and I don't believe he was, then at 57kg (8st 13½lbs) he would have been severely malnourished and this undoubtedly must have contributed to his inability to shake off the fatal fever.

    I also noticed the name of the wine merchants... Berry, any relations? :wink:
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    I saw this too on the BBC and I was intrigued by the following:
    In 1806 Byron weighed 13st 12lbs (88kg), but he was under 9st by 1811 (57kg) - a huge weight loss of nearly 5st (32kg). We know all this from records at Berry Bros & Rudd, a wine merchants of St James's, London.
    I wouldn't say that 5st (32kg) over 5 years was a "huge weight loss"... in fact it seems quite sustainable, however, unless Lord Byron was tiny and I don't believe he was, then at 57kg (8st 13½lbs) he would have been severely malnourished and this undoubtedly must have contributed to his inability to shake off the fatal fever.

    I also noticed the name of the wine merchants... Berry, any relations? :wink:

    Good point! The article blames his personal illnesses on dieting, but maybe he just lost weight because he was sick. How do they know he was dieting? Unless he wrote it down in a journal... I am curious about the BBC's sources on this one.
This discussion has been closed.