Are We Really Fatter Nowadays?

[Dingo667]

I love vintage images, especially victorian ladies. I like seeing how they wore their hair etc. This means that I have looked at quite a few photos from that time and saved some for later use as avatars [maybe].
Anyway, the other day an article in the Daily Schmail caught my eye about victorian prostitutes. Very nice photos by the way and some quite natural.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 1890s.html

I also read what I read every day that we are all too fat nowadays and will all die because of it and the NHS won't treat those nasty fatties any longer and being chubby is possibly the worst sin there is.

And somehow for the first time I put these two together and noted that most of these victorian ladies are for today's [official] standards overweight. They have hips and chunky thighs and are all quite well rounded. No not fat but if they were weighed by modern GP's they'd be told to loose some weight.

Now, I tried to find some other pictures of more victorian ladies but they are all over and I am not feeling too well today to do all that work. Needless to say that a lot of them have a hefty midrift, only squeezed of course by a corset, which somehow makes people think they are slimmer than they actually were.

Basically I found that age and chubbiness is almost exactly reflected by those ladies from over 100 years ago as it is in modern women. The younger are slimmer than the middle aged.

Then I'll go back to the obvious that is always cited, the Rubenesque ladies, painted even earlier. Their bellies lying happily on their big white thighs and I wonder if thin, slim, anorexics were always the minorities in history [unless they were starving].

I just googled "photos of victorian ladies" and after looking at some, I happened to see a few shots of 'modern' women amongst them [models or singers] and they suddenly looked unreal compared to the victorians. They looked positively freaky actually.

So what am I trying to say and why is this in conspiracy?

I say that apart from a few really morbidly obese freaks, which happen to exist thanks to access to very high calorie and fatty foods, the majority of women...even if they are slightly chubby...are quite normal.
I am saying that being thin is actually the unnatural state to be. It seems that throughout history women were on the "soft" side. I am on the "soft" side, being a size 12 and only 5f2" tall. I don't look anorexic but I don't look fat either. Yet my GP told me that I "NEED TO LOOSE WEIGHT". Even though I've been like this since my teens and have never gone any bigger. The GP can just go and make love to herself!

It is a conspiracy in my opinion because not only can the government pass strange bills using obesity but it can order us around, tell us what to eat, exercise more, buy vitamins etc etc, which all leads to making more money. I don't think for one moment that they are interested in our well being.

I know that we all think that being lean will make us live longer, but where is the actual evidence? I know a lot of overweight/chubby/soft people who lived beyond their 80's, which to me is quite old. And I know of people who died early, who were thin and sporty.
So, were women always "soft" and is this the first age of mean, lean, stick women, and is the word obese misused for a figure that has always existed; in order to make money?

 

[Quake42]

Thanks for posting this - it's something I've pondered on as well. Not going back as far as Victorian days (though I agree there are often some hefty people in those old photos) but I remember seeing a school photo of my mum's class in the early 60s. None of the class were grossly obese, but the most of the girls were pretty chunky - borad shoulders, thick waists, tree trunk legs.

Like a lot of the hysteria about drinking and smoking I can't help but think that the anti-fat mania is rooted more in puritanical disapproval of people enjoying themselves, and a desire to control people, than it is in concern for health...

 

[GNC]

Like a lot of the hysteria about drinking and smoking I can't help but think that the anti-fat mania is rooted more in puritanical disapproval of people enjoying themselves, and a desire to control people, than it is in concern for health...

What would be the benefit in a miserable population? Health problems cost the nation a lot of money, so I'd say the motives for a slimmer Britain were financial. As usual with seemingly everything these days.

 

[AngelAlice]

I think the idea that obesity is a 'growing problem' is one of those hysterical and slightly fascist concepts that evolve in the modern zeitigeist. Another non-issue to hand-wave about while ignoring all the real problems. I think, for what it's worth, people in populations where food is relatively easy to acquire have always been in the same range of fat/lean ratios they are now.

Edit - btw - have you ever checked out the nonsense of the BMI scales? According to those my 6ft, 184 pound son is overweight (he looks like a long, skinny drink of water), and he could lose another fifty pounds before being skinny.

 

[GNC]

If it's costing us a lot of money, it's not an non-issue.

 

[AngelAlice]

If it's costing us a lot of money, it's not an non-issue.

Well, firstly, I think we need some data about how much money they're actually costing us (and no, tabloid headlines don't count ), and secondly - so what? Old people cost us money too. And pregnant women. And people who do dumb sports and break their bones. And people who smoke and get cancer. And people who have sex and get STDs. And people who work dirty jobs and get work-related disability. People cost other people money. That's what being a society that takes care of itself is all about.

 

[GNC]

You know what the powers that be are like these days - anything to save money.

 

[Quake42]

Old people cost us money too. And pregnant women. And people who do dumb sports and break their bones. And people who smoke and get cancer. And people who have sex and get STDs. And people who work dirty jobs and get work-related disability. People cost other people money. That's what being a society that takes care of itself is all about.

Quite. A lot of the lecturing around lifestyle seems to imply that if you lived on lettuce and mineral water, and took plenty of early morning runs, you'd be immortal.

Sadly not - ultimately something is going to kill you and if we're talking purely financial measures, a 95 year old is likely to cost "us" a lot more money in pensions and long term care than a fat drinker and smoker who drops down dead at 70.

What would be the benefit in a miserable population?

There's always been a large group of influential people who dislike others having what they see as licentious fun. This puritanisam used to be dressed up with religious belief, now it's covered in a veneer of concerns about health. Ultimately though it's the same arguments and the same sorts of people making them.

 

[GNC]

The religious miseries had the fear of God to fall back on, but wouldn't a happier population be more likely to vote the government back into power? I know some people are never happier than when they're pronouncing doom on the rest of us, but I'd like to think positivity was a more generally attractive trait. Again, I think it all boils down to this obsession with money.

 

[Quake42]

The religious miseries had the fear of God to fall back on, but wouldn't a happier population be more likely to vote the government back into power?

I wasn't necessarily talking about the government - more pressure groups and the like, many of which are very influential.

Again, I think it all boils down to this obsession with money.

But if it did, surely the advice would be to drink booze, snoke fags, eat lard and drop down dead before we have to pay you a pension?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Maybe the government wants us to be thinner and fitter so they can draft us into the forces to fight all these unnecessary wars?

 

[GNC]

Again, I think it all boils down to this obsession with money.

But if it did, surely the advice would be to drink booze, snoke fags, eat lard and drop down dead before we have to pay you a pension?

Well, there is the small matter of morality, oft dismissed or even ignored, but it is there.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Well, there is the small matter of morality, oft dismissed or even ignored, but it is there.

In what way? Could you be more specific about what you mean by, 'morality', in this case?

 

[GNC]

Well, there is the small matter of morality, oft dismissed or even ignored, but it is there.

In what way? Could you be more specific about what you mean by, 'morality', in this case?

The morality of not allowing people who depend on you to do harm to themselves or others. Although it doesn't always look like it, especially these days, but our leaders in government and society are supposed to be looking after us rather than looking out for themselves.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

It may be reassuring to look at images of stout people of the past and take comfort from them but they were the survivors in a world where unwanted kids were sent to starve on baby-farms or were overlaid, not too many questions asked. A good stout wife was a sounder investment than a poor skinny thing that might not last the winter!

Not all the alarm about ballooning sizes can be dismissed as sinister propaganda: I've seen many more obsese kids in the last few years than used to be the norm. While adults are perfectly free to choose whether or not to spend their days comforting themselves on blueberry muffins and doughnuts - yes, I do look in a lot of baskets and I don't think that token diet-Pepsi is going to help one bit! - the effect of these habits on their sprogs, at least, ought to be a matter of public concern. Unfairly, perhaps, the pressured and inadequate mum is going to get the flak that rightly should be shared with the usually-absent dad.

My impression - anecdotal, but from close-up - is that girls are especially vulnerable to feeder-mums; boys seem a lot more likely to feel the peer-group pressure to become more active in sports and exercise. The oft-noted phenomenon of fit lads and f. s. clicks in when the habits are reinforced by early marriage, repeated pregnancies and a repeat of the cycle.

Still, I can see that if life is going to be pretty much without meaning, the couch may have a siren call.

 

[Quake42]

The morality of not allowing people who depend on you to do harm to themselves or others.

In fairness, your original contention that the health propaganda was purely about money; you now seem to be saying it's a moral crusade. Which is it?

More generally I think there is a big difference between preventing people doing harm to others, and preventing them from engaging in activities of which you disapprove - because this is really what we're talking about here. Horseriding is a very dangerous pursuit, much more dangerous than, say, taking ecstasy. Should people be banned from riding horses? Why the focus on the one harm caused by one activity rather than the other?

It comes back to the puritan impulse as far as I can see.

 

[Quake42]

My impression - anecdotal, but from close-up - is that girls are especially vulnerable to feeder-mums; boys seem a lot more likely to feel the peer-group pressure to become more active in sports and exercise.

Not my impression I have to say; far more typical in my experience is mothers indulging their sons with endless pizzas and burgers (because he's a "growing lad") whilst at the same time tutting about their daughters' weight and criticising their diets.

The oft-noted phenomenon of fit lads and f. s.

Nice. What a horrible phrase! :shock:

 

[Dingo667]

The morality of not allowing people who depend on you to do harm to themselves or others.

In fairness, your original contention that the health propaganda was purely about money; you now seem to be saying it's a moral crusade. Which is it?

More generally I think there is a big difference between preventing people doing harm to others, and preventing them from engaging in activities of which you disapprove - because this is really what we're talking about here. Horseriding is a very dangerous pursuit, much more dangerous than, say, taking ecstasy. Should people be banned from riding horses? Why the focus on the one harm caused by one activity rather than the other?

It comes back to the puritan impulse as far as I can see.

:yeay: I couldn't have said it better.
Also who ever said on the first page [sorry can't go back and check now that I opened this] that as a society we should look after everybody because in the end all ailments are somehow self inflicted. Even trying to get to work using public transport and catching the flu for example.
Being fat isn't a new thing but it seems to be the 'in' thing at the moment to be singled out.

 

[WhistlingJack]

I know that we all think that being lean will make us live longer, but where is the actual evidence?

I think it's true that of those who reach the age of 100+, even those who've smoked and drank all their lives, none are overweight.

 

[Quake42]

I think it's true that of those who reach the age of 100+, even those who've smoked and drank all their lives, none are overweight.

Hmm... they might not be overweight *at the age of 100+* but that's mainly because very old people eat little and their bodies seem to struggle to process food. I have relatives who are/were in their 90s who could have been described as overweight when younger but who all lost weight fairly dramatically from their late 80s onwards (without trying to).

I doubt that you can say that all centenarians have *nver* been overwight, or indeed spent a large portion of their adult lives being overweight.

 

[Yithian]

There are overweight people in those old photographs, but they are still human shaped (no doubt corsets help, but check the thighs). Walk around any town centre in the UK on Saturday afternoon, however, and you'll see a number or people who have transcended 'overweight' and entered a new category (a strict correlation between obese and BMI is not terribly helpful so call it whatever you like); there'll be a class link to boot. I don't want to labour the point or be mean, but we're talking about people whose proportions are all wrong and who don't move as humans are designed to.

One hundred years ago or more the tiny number of extremely overweight people would have been rich; today the (significantly larger) number of extremely overweight people are predominantly poor. As has been pointed out (by JW, IIRC) those ladies were certainly not 'the norm'.

So 'Are we really fatter nowadays'? Taking 'we' to mean the UK, I'd hazard that the average weight is higher today than a century ago and the extreme few percent are far, far heavier, but is everyone 'fatter'? No, that's a silly suggestion. Taking 'we' to mean 'humans', again, yes. The UK & the US are pretty big on a world scale.

 

[GNC]

The morality of not allowing people who depend on you to do harm to themselves or others.

In fairness, your original contention that the health propaganda was purely about money; you now seem to be saying it's a moral crusade. Which is it?

Can't it be both? Although "crusade" sounds a bit religious, from what I can see we had these "guardians" (if you like) ostensibly because they were meant to be looking out for our best interests, and now they want to stop spending so much money on that process, prevention being better than cure to use a medical term. But nobody likes being told what to do these days, even if it is good for them.

 

[Spookdaddy]

From my point of view it's sometimes very difficult to tell the difference in crusader spirit between the people who are supposedly crusading and those who accuse them of doing so. Seems to me that virtually every time we get a food - health related story the same old accusation gets raised, and I just can't help thinking that what appears to me to be the most sensible line in nutrition - everything in moderation - might apply to the argument as a whole.

 

[Cultjunky]

I think one of the things that has been overlooked a little here is the impact of changes in the working world.

In days of yore, a large proportion of society were involved in types of work that were physical in their nature, in both a rural and urban setting. Add to that a lack of public transport, it would be reasonable to suggest that that as a whole, the population were getting more exercise, which would keep the populace leaner.

How many of those overweight/fat/calorifically challenged actually spend the largest proportion of their waking life sat on their arses? From the moment they get in the car/on the bus to get to work, to sitting behind a desk all day, to sitting in front of the telly all evening.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...In days of yore, a large proportion of society were involved in types of work that were physical in their nature, in both a rural and urban setting...

I think this is a major factor, and one, as you say, which is often over-looked. I was having this very conversation - only unrelated to health issues - last weekend in the pub. The guy I was with is a metalworker, and I'm a carpenter (a lot of the time - I do other things too, but wood is my bread and butter). Anyway, we were reflecting that 50 years ago the physical nature of the job we do would have put us in the majority, whereas now things have reversed.

Also, snacking: my grandad never snacked because for most of his life there just wasn't much to snack on; food was just less convenient than it is now, took more preparation, and didn't come in little plastic bags.

 

[Quake42]

I think this is a major factor, and one, as you say, which is often over-looked.

Agreed - I'm sure I read somewhere that average calorie intake is actually much lower than in recent decades. The lack of movement is what has changed.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I know that we all think that being lean will make us live longer, but where is the actual evidence?

I think it's true that of those who reach the age of 100+, even those who've smoked and drank all their lives, none are overweight.

My gran on my father's side lived to 98 and she was as fat as a barrel.

 

[Spookdaddy]

My gran on my father's side lived to 98 and she was as fat as a barrel.

Doesn't tell us much - was she skinny as a pin, or firkin huge?

 

[Mythopoeika]

My gran on my father's side lived to 98 and she was as fat as a barrel.

Doesn't tell us much - was she skinny as a pin, or firkin huge?

Firkin huge, man. Being fat didn't shorten her life.

 

[SHAYBARSABE]

Agreed - I'm sure I read somewhere that average calorie intake is actually much lower than in recent decades. The lack of movement is what has changed.

Lack of movement, for sure. In the back when, housekeeping and chasing kiddies all day was a major source of exercise for women.

Ladies who had servants did have a tendancy to put it on.

However, I want someone to explain to my boss why I need to not work 9.5 hours a day in front of a computer. The necessity of doing a job kind of gets in the way of advice to exercise; I don't hear pundits talking about that problem. :hmph: