One thought I had, inspired by the sorts of reality shows we watch

[xiphias]

The only reality TV I've ever watched has been the PBS stuff -- 1900 House, Manor House, Frontier House, 1940 House, and Colonial House. Okay, also Rough Science.

Something that occurred to me is that in all of those shows (except Rough Science, which is doing something different) every single person on it lost weight. Even the lord and lady of the manor in Manor House. And were therefore healthier at the end of the shows than the beginning.

Boy. We Westerners have a truly impressive degree of gluttony. Even the upper-class rich parasite classes ate less, and exercised more, than we do.

Comments

[kightp.livejournal.com]

It's the exercise, I think, more than the caloric intake. Meals on a working farm, for instance, are often *massive* compared with what we eat now, if not as varied. They have to be, to fuel the dawn-to-dusk physical work.

In my grandmother's day, a woman who spent her entire day sitting down, as I do, would have been called an invalid.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I think calling it gluttony is a very late C.20/early C.21 view.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Hmm. From my reading and from portraits I've seen, upper-class rich parasite types (and even people who were not but who did not have physically demanding jobs) in the late 19th century were pretty round--it was fashionable. I think something else is going on here.

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

I'm not too thrilled with the idea that weight loss automatically equals better health. I watched some of Colonial House - that wasn't much of a healthy diet. I think most of the time, people in the past were thinner because of a) lots more activity and b) malnourishment. Our problem is less one of gluttony and more one of inactivity. Also we equate thinness with fitness, which is often very wrong.

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

I was going to say the same thing. I was bothered by the assumption "And were therefore healthier at the end of the shows than the beginning" in response to the statement that people lost weight. Despite the messages constantly barraging us in American culture, weight loss is not always a good thing. Just check out an anorexia clinic or an AIDS hospice.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Re-reading what I said, I realize that "therefore" was a misleading word for what I intended to convey.

What I intended to convey was that, in those particular cases, the people were healthier at the end of the project than at the beginning, and it appeared to be a direct consequence of their having lost weight. I did NOT intend to imply that in ALL cases, weight loss would lead to increased health.

[unquietsoul5.livejournal.com]

I don't remember hearing that the folks in 1900 house lost weight, and would consider it very strange when one looks at the diet of the period of the middle and upper class. (I believe that's the show that used London as the city of choice etc.)

The folks on 1940 house were also living under the rationing system of the war, if I remember which severely reduced food intake. Generally if you remember WWII is what caused the USA to institute school lunch programs, minimal standards of eating and the nutrition 'pyramid' into national health policy because they had to turn away so many would-be soliders because they were suffering from malnutrition to begin with. Women on the homefront had to live without much in the way of meat, sugar, milk, butter, and other staples of the American Diet.

As for the folks involved being healthier - that may not be as true as you think. Remember that I believe they ended up with food poisoning and a form of Dysentary on one show (the medieval one I believe) and I suspect the level of salt intake by the folks on the Colonial House was way too high (they were mainly eating salted fish and other stores, not the grain and livestock that the colony was supposedly producing).

Exercise level, of course, was higher in all cases. That's what happen when you go to a car-crazy society like we have today.

[unquietsoul5.livejournal.com]

Oh, one more side note. I suspect that NONE of the shows duplicated the period diets correctly - the quanity of alcohol consumption in most periods was probably considerably HIGHER than they allowed on the shows, to say the least. Lots of calories in the beer etc that was missing I'm sure.

And none of the folks were on those diets long enough on the shows to really get the full nutritional problem effects they would have had (like say Scurvy) if on them long enough as presented.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I think that 1940s house probably did have a historical level of alcohol -- because at that point, alcohol consumption was artificially lowered by rationing. But I did notice that I thought that the Colonials were drinking WAY less beer than I would have expected -- several people complained about how little beer they got, which would seem unlikely if they were drinking beer as their primary source of liquid with every meal.

[greenlily.livejournal.com]

I noticed that too. I seem to recall, from one of the brief periods when Brookline discarded its political correctness enough to actually teach American history in its schools, that most of the early colonials drank beer at most meals, on account of the local water wasn't drinkable.

[jehanna.livejournal.com]

...

I was going to reply to this and go off on a huge rant about eating disorders and the abuse of food not being the same thing as gluttony and la la la, but I suspect the sheer craptastic excess of my day is making me more sensitive to this than I might be normally.

Hell, I've had enough poison spread around to me today. No sense turning around and doing the same bad thing to you.

I wanted to give this thought first

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

My first inclination was to feel, chastised I suppose is the word. It does come across that way when first read, since I am of the 21st Century and am indeed in need of losing many pounds. Once over that knee-jerk feeling, and pondering your reaction to these shows, I came upon at least one point that hasn't been mentioned.
Lifespans. People didn't live very long. Even when they lived to "ripe old ages" and weren't taken down by disease, they lived less productive time than we do now. Sure, their bodies were harder, and leaner (I feel that is probably true of most seeing as there was more physical labor and little sit down work needed), but the price was a shorter lifespan, and more disease. Some of the disease could have been rectified with a better diet.
Sure, we eat too much crap and don't exersize enough as a society. I don't deny that. But to claim that our ancestors were somehow "better" or "healthier" without looking at the big picture doesn't give us credit for what we have accomplished in the way of health and self care. We are not lazy pigs in my mind, we simply haven't yet adjusted to our abundance and change of culture.