Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, where exactly are you getting your premise that everyone was so thin back then? Are you looking at photos or movies or something? I was alive then and I remember seeing people of all sizes, with plenty who were on the heavy side.
I lived in a pretty international neighborhood, with a lot of immigrants from various countries, so that might have affected the looks of the people I sàw regularly. But even still, we were out and about in many places and I saw a wide range of sizes of people everywhere we went.
OP, are you out there? Can you give some background on what you're basing your ideas about how people looked in the 60s and 70s? Thanks!
LMAO that you've ignored streams of data of how much fatter we are and asking OP to verify it.
This is a totally different point: how much fatter we are. No one is debating that. What is being questioned is the notion that the entire population was very thin in 1970. Do you see the difference in those two points?
No there have always been fatties. There are just more now.
But the OP said that people of all ages were so thin during the 60s and 70s. We're asking what that assumption is based on.
It's not an assumption. It's a fact which has been studied for decades. One example of reporting research: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/?utm_term=.49540e50ed9a
You are not posting any information about people being very thin in the 60s and 70s. You continue to post information about how fat people are NOW. Do you really not see the difference???? There's a difference between people being fat now and people being very thin in the 70's. Is this not clear to you?
NP. are we reading a different article? The one PP just posted has a very clear graph that shows how much heaver the average woman has gotten since the 1960s/70s. What exactlya re you looking for?
This article says the average woman weighed 140 in 1970. How is that very thin?
Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think we start things off badly now, with this idea that babies and toddlers need to snack all the time.
From the earliest days, my kids got three meals a day, and one snack (whether the snack was in the morning or afternoon depended on when their naps were. That is, when they had the longest awake stretch between meals.)
And they never ate on the run. Snacks were eaten at the table, just like meals. They didn't drink milk all the time like so many kids. Or juice. All they drank was water.
I know people will say I was a mean mom, but they never asked for snacks between times. One result of the meal schedule was that when they did have meals or a snack, they ate more than their peers, because they'd actually waited long enough to work up an appetite. (This also helped them be less picky eaters, in my opinion.)
Call me a sanctimommy if you want, but I feel it worked well to snack less. (and yes, there were exceptions to the rule if there needed to be. But my kids never begged for food. They were too busy!) I think too many parents offer food as appeasement (you're upset? Want a yogurt?) or as a reward (you've been so good! Let's get an ice cream!)
My mom's rule was that we could have fresh fruit and vegetables at any time, but if we didn't want those, we weren't really hungry and were not allowed a snack outside of set times. Snack was served after school, and was cookies and milk or something. We had dessert pretty much every night, but at least half the time it was fruit. (The other times it was cake or ice cream.) I do think that the constant snacking is a problem. I'm okay with a mid-morning and mid-afternoon snack, but food every 30 minutes is too much. I tell my kids that it's okay to feel hungry.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, where exactly are you getting your premise that everyone was so thin back then? Are you looking at photos or movies or something? I was alive then and I remember seeing people of all sizes, with plenty who were on the heavy side.
I lived in a pretty international neighborhood, with a lot of immigrants from various countries, so that might have affected the looks of the people I sàw regularly. But even still, we were out and about in many places and I saw a wide range of sizes of people everywhere we went.
OP, are you out there? Can you give some background on what you're basing your ideas about how people looked in the 60s and 70s? Thanks!
LMAO that you've ignored streams of data of how much fatter we are and asking OP to verify it.
This is a totally different point: how much fatter we are. No one is debating that. What is being questioned is the notion that the entire population was very thin in 1970. Do you see the difference in those two points?
No there have always been fatties. There are just more now.
But the OP said that people of all ages were so thin during the 60s and 70s. We're asking what that assumption is based on.
It's not an assumption. It's a fact which has been studied for decades. One example of reporting research: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/?utm_term=.49540e50ed9a
You are not posting any information about people being very thin in the 60s and 70s. You continue to post information about how fat people are NOW. Do you really not see the difference???? There's a difference between people being fat now and people being very thin in the 70's. Is this not clear to you?
NP. are we reading a different article? The one PP just posted has a very clear graph that shows how much heaver the average woman has gotten since the 1960s/70s. What exactlya re you looking for?
Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of theories here but I think it's a combination of factors. People are pinging in on the theories that illustrate differences between their own childhoods. But everybody grew up differently. I think a lot of the theories too are based on your own biases.
The studies show that generally we are taking in about 20% more calories now than we did decades ago. we ate fluffernutters and Twinkies and Stouffer's meals back then; we eat better now, but we eat more.
I think therd are also maybe chemical and hormonal imbalances in play, and for childhood obesity, definitely a more sedentary lifestyle. But we adults aren't any more sedentary now than we were.
I
Anonymous wrote:I think we start things off badly now, with this idea that babies and toddlers need to snack all the time.
From the earliest days, my kids got three meals a day, and one snack (whether the snack was in the morning or afternoon depended on when their naps were. That is, when they had the longest awake stretch between meals.)
And they never ate on the run. Snacks were eaten at the table, just like meals. They didn't drink milk all the time like so many kids. Or juice. All they drank was water.
I know people will say I was a mean mom, but they never asked for snacks between times. One result of the meal schedule was that when they did have meals or a snack, they ate more than their peers, because they'd actually waited long enough to work up an appetite. (This also helped them be less picky eaters, in my opinion.)
Call me a sanctimommy if you want, but I feel it worked well to snack less. (and yes, there were exceptions to the rule if there needed to be. But my kids never begged for food. They were too busy!) I think too many parents offer food as appeasement (you're upset? Want a yogurt?) or as a reward (you've been so good! Let's get an ice cream!)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, where exactly are you getting your premise that everyone was so thin back then? Are you looking at photos or movies or something? I was alive then and I remember seeing people of all sizes, with plenty who were on the heavy side.
I lived in a pretty international neighborhood, with a lot of immigrants from various countries, so that might have affected the looks of the people I sàw regularly. But even still, we were out and about in many places and I saw a wide range of sizes of people everywhere we went.
OP, are you out there? Can you give some background on what you're basing your ideas about how people looked in the 60s and 70s? Thanks!
LMAO that you've ignored streams of data of how much fatter we are and asking OP to verify it.
This is a totally different point: how much fatter we are. No one is debating that. What is being questioned is the notion that the entire population was very thin in 1970. Do you see the difference in those two points?
No there have always been fatties. There are just more now.
But the OP said that people of all ages were so thin during the 60s and 70s. We're asking what that assumption is based on.
It's not an assumption. It's a fact which has been studied for decades. One example of reporting research: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/?utm_term=.49540e50ed9a
You are not posting any information about people being very thin in the 60s and 70s. You continue to post information about how fat people are NOW. Do you really not see the difference???? There's a difference between people being fat now and people being very thin in the 70's. Is this not clear to you?