1940/50s diet

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Tipster - 04 Jun 2005 17:02 GMT

If we rationed meat, sugar, fat (butter/vegetable oil) and fish would
we be able to reduce the obesity problem?

I've heard that people in the 1940s and 50s were healthier (overall)
partly due to the restricted consumption of

fat
sugar
meat/fish

Reply to this Message

Enrico C - 04 Jun 2005 17:12 GMT

On 4 Jun 2005 09:02:18 -0700, Tipster wrote in
<news:1117900937.981774.129270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

> If we rationed meat, sugar, fat (butter/vegetable oil) and fish would
> we be able to reduce the obesity problem?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> sugar
> meat/fish

And much more physical work.

Signature

Enrico C

Reply to this Message

Robert - 04 Jun 2005 21:42 GMT

> On 4 Jun 2005 09:02:18 -0700, Tipster wrote in
> <news:1117900937.981774.129270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> And much more physical work.

And the life expectancy was?
If people were dying earlier because of the bad eating habits then Social
Security wouldn't be in the mess it's in.
The argument they always bring in is that people live longer with chronic
disease compared to before. Yes, they would simply die early before which
brings up the problem of if good eating and exercise is the big secret and
it cure cancer then why were they dying early?
Well they were dying earlier because of infections and we have antibiotics
now. Meaning eating good doesn't provide immunity to anything. Yes, that's
true.
Time is no longer linear but can be distorted by space.

Reply to this Message

Mr-Natural-Health - 05 Jun 2005 03:51 GMT

> Meaning eating good doesn't provide immunity to anything. Yes, that's
> true.

Maybe, if you ate well? ... And, got off your big a.s once and a
while.

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :)

Reply to this Message

MMu - 06 Jun 2005 09:04 GMT

> On 4 Jun 2005 09:02:18 -0700, Tipster wrote in
> <news:1117900937.981774.129270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> And much more physical work.

I suppose it would work.

Reply to this Message

Tipster - 06 Jun 2005 20:25 GMT

At least in England, I've heard that people were "healthier" as a
whole. I dont know what "healthier" exactly means but I guess there
were fewer obese people back then, right?

I

Reply to this Message

MMu - 07 Jun 2005 09:16 GMT

> At least in England, I've heard that people were "healthier" as a
> whole. I dont know what "healthier" exactly means but I guess there
> were fewer obese people back then, right?

Certainly.
After that everything went overboard since people ate all they could afford.
Meat was something you ate once a week or on special occasions.. now people
it it every single day.
Same goes for sweets etc.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that they lived longer though.. I think that
really can't be estimated since the parameters were so different from today.
But there sure were less obese people around.

Reply to this Message

Alf Christophersen - 22 Jun 2005 19:40 GMT

>At least in England, I've heard that people were "healthier" as a
>whole. I dont know what "healthier" exactly means but I guess there
>were fewer obese people back then, right?

Got less heart attacks. That's all that counts.

Reply to this Message

John Sankey - 05 Jun 2005 00:13 GMT

"If we rationed meat, sugar, fat (butter/vegetable oil) and fish
would we be able to reduce the obesity problem?"

During the rationing of the 2nd war, my mom (raised as a 5th
generation dairy farmer) put huge amounts of beef heart and tongue on
the table. They were almost free because they were out of fashion,
AND, not rationed. Come the end of the war, and we kids played with
ration discs as play money, we had so many left over. Fish existed
only on Fridays, and was too expensive for us inlanders to consider
buying.

Mom was on a non-stop diet the whole time, bearing genes from her
mother (a Baker, who tended to overweight).

Reply to this Message