Why were people so skinny in the 70s and 80s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Mom was a health nut and worked out in President Lady's Fitness in those thong over leggings outfits. I spent my evenings in the child care area of the gym and then worked there as a teen. She also did speed and ran in those solar suits with her stick figure girlfriends. She was obsessed with being 102 pounds. My Dad played on adult tennis and golf leagues and stated fit that way. As a child, I was very thin, active and only knew 1 fat child in our school. Now, everyone notices if you are thin.

Wow I want to see pictures of your parents! They sound like characters out of a cheesy 80s movie and I mean that as a compliment. They both sound awesome! I want to see the solar suits!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fruit did not come in tubes. No lunchables.

No it came rolled up on saran wrap



We had PLENTY of junk food back then, I promise you. This was not some agrarian paradise. Our food was chock full of chemicals.

I’m 42 and we totally had lunchables in the 80’s. Also, bologna/American was a popular sandwich. Usually with a side of Doritos. And like a PP mentioned it was all in the those plastic sandwich baggies that folded instead of zipped because the zipper ones were way too expensive!

I’m 46, co-sign everything above. My mom wouldn’t buy Lunchables because she said they were overpriced and full of sodium. But she did buy Cokes (I’m sure I had a 16 oz glass bottle — remember those?! — nearly every day), and Hostess snack cakes, and Better Cheddars, and sugary granola bars, and all sorts of junk.

And like a PP in this thread described, “salad” was a big hunk of iceberg with dressing. Maybe some tomatoes and carrots.

Oh, and we ate at McDonald’s at least once a week.

I’m the same height as I was in my early teens (my growth spurt was early). Back then, I weighed about 15 pounds less. Sigh. Now it’s a constant struggle and takes vigilance not to put on any more pounds.

+1 to all this, except weekly McDonald's (because my parents were too cheap to eat out much).

[Anonymous]

This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

Agree mostly. BMI is a large range. It already accounts for most muscle and skeletal frame variation. There are few reasons good reasons why the majority of people can’t manage to be somewhere within the heathy range. With the exception of men since they have a significantly more amount of muscle and variations of muscle amount

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

[Anonymous]

70s and 80s were before GMO Genetically Modified Foods were introduced into our food systems. I think plays a huge part

[Anonymous]

I'm old enough to remember, I was a 70s kid and 80s teenager. The 1970s were the era of rampant inflation -- way worse than right now -- so families had less money to spend and there was less food in the fridge. There were also fewer brands to buy. My mother used to chop up carrot sticks and celery and put them in a bowl of cold water n the fridge. I would use tongs to pull some out as a snack on a plate with cheese and peanut butter after school. My mother also made fresh bread almost every day, and we had a backyard garden with blueberries, snap peas, and other goodies. Kid's PE class at school was intense. I remember sprinting in every class, doing a ton of pushups and situps. My mom weighed her food on a tiny scale and never ate a serving larger than so many milligrams.

Aerobics came along in the 1980s (Jane Fonda) as well as Jazzercise. These were huge crazes. So fitness became a big thing as food choices bloomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

No. It’s not fat. You are the disordered one in your perception.

Those women look way healthier than at Woodstock and are skinny.

you don't even know what the word skinny means or looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

No. It’s not fat. You are the disordered one in your perception.

Those women look way healthier than at Woodstock and are skinny.

you don't even know what the word skinny means or looks like.

Okay eating disorder poster, ... I'M the one that does not know what skinny mean.. it's not YOU. It could not be YOU. NEVER.

That is exactly the definition of eating disorder, looking at skinny and thinking fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

Disagree, most teens I know practice 2-3 hours a day, do 2 a days for 8 weeks preseason. Tournaments on the weekend 5-8x a year with 4-6 games. Maybe your social group but not most teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coachella girls look fat to me.

Eating disorders have destroyed the heathy perspective

BS. Look at the trio behind the girls in red/black. A lot of women look like that. They are fat. Compare them to the average young woman in the 70s/80s. They look nothing alike. Even the slimmer girls in front are bigger than they used to be. How did "eating disorders" change that? Unless you think everyone looked really unhealthy decades ago. Eating disorders aren't playing tricks on our eyes, the women are bigger than they used to be decades ago. It's only the why that's up for debate. But part of it is people are eating a lot of unhealthy food in massive portions too frequently and not getting enough exercise, among other explanations.

No. It’s not fat. You are the disordered one in your perception.

Those women look way healthier than at Woodstock and are skinny.

you don't even know what the word skinny means or looks like.

Okay eating disorder poster, ... I'M the one that does not know what skinny mean.. it's not YOU. It could not be YOU. NEVER.

That is exactly the definition of eating disorder, looking at skinny and thinking fat.

So if someone doesn't agree with you they have an eating disorder? And NO you don't know what skinny means. It means skin and bones. You can see no bones on those girls. You need glasses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

The vast majority of women are not capable of having enough muscle mass to through them into an unhealthy BMI while having a low body fat. If you are a women, not an elite athlete or body builder, and have a BMI over the healthy range, you are overweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what gets me thinking - to what extent is BMI at all a valid way of evaluating things?

It's just kind of mindblowing. So if the healthy BMI is between 18.5-25, then a 5'4 woman should weigh anything from just under 110 to just over 140. At 118-120, I'm at the lower end of normal, but I don't think of myself as thin at all. I'm athletic and maybe even bulky to some. In the 70s and 80s, I'd probably be considered thick, having a good sized booty for a white woman. It seemed like normal/thin for a young woman at that time would be a BMI under 20. Now, by BMI I am absolutely "skinny" in comparison, at the 15th or so percentile. It's mindblowing that the average woman of my height weighs 50 lbs more than me. The AVERAGE! Which means, by standard deviation, there could very well be more people who weigh 100 lbs more than me than those who weigh less than me. That is absolutely nuts and should not be normalized. Normalize health, not disordered eating, in either direction.

BMI is such a terrible measure the military doesn’t really use it because most men can’t go through basic training, gain all that muscle and still have a healthy BMI.

Most people don't have the activity level of someone in boot camp. BMI is one indicator, if you are outside of healthy range, it's an indication that more analysis is needed. Do you have an extremely small or large frame? Are you extremely muscular? Are other health indicators in a healthy range? Just one measurement but an easy one.

The vast majority of women are not capable of having enough muscle mass to through them into an unhealthy BMI while having a low body fat. If you are a women, not an elite athlete or body builder, and have a BMI over the healthy range, you are overweight.

I disagree. You take any girl that is 5'9" above they have the body mass and muscles to make BMI very unreliable. There is actually a lawsuit against the military the lays out the science, because BMI isn't used for men but is was being used against women. The women won.

You don't understand the science.