Monday, May 20, 2013

How has the 1950s diet affected my health over the past 3 1/2 years?


I generally have my cholesterol checked every five years which is the current recommendation endorsed by the American Heart Association although I waited six years this time. I've never had a problem with high cholesterol, however I made some significant changes with my 50s diet and I wondered how it would affect my "bad" cholesterol. Sure, I'm smaller on the outside, I lost four inches around my waist, I have more energy and mental clarity, but high cholesterol can be a hidden danger when you don't know your numbers.

I had my cholesterol checked in August 2007. At that time my diet consisted of a high percentage of processed diet foods such as frozen meals, Weight Watchers "high fiber" breads and desserts with inulin. I also ate very little real cheese because I knew it was high in fat so I took calcium supplements and at fat free cheese "product." I rarely if ever ate whole eggs and instead bought pre-packaged egg whites. When I fell off the diet wagon every few days I ate Oreos, apple pie with lots of whipped cream, chocolate cream pie, supermarket birthday cake when it wasn't anyone's birthday (although it's always someone's birthday I rationalized), entire bags of Smartfood popcorn and cookies.

I started using fitday in the beginning of 2007 so I'm able to look at detailed data of my food and nutrition. I began my diet from modern day diets by going 1950s in January 2010. While still counting calories I made the following dietary changes by eating:
  • Minimally or non-processed foods
  • Naturally occurring fiber by eating more fruits and vegetables and cut out all inulin, polydextrose, etc.
  • Real, whole organic eggs more often than egg whites out of a carton
  • 2-3 servings of organic hard cheese daily instead of none and stopped taking a calcium supplement
  • Cut out all refined carbs and sugars the first year and now allow myself an average of one tablespoon of added maple syrup daily
  • Organic oatmeal and raisins instead of prepackaged cereals
  • More whole grains and potatoes
  • Cut out all gluten because it was contributing to IBS and worse causing me inexplicable muscle pain for years. When I went gluten-free I experienced a significant reduction in pain and no longer have chronic stomach aches
  • Real whipped cream over baked apples or ice cream made from scratch as an occasional treat instead of low or non-fat processed desserts
  • Red meat more often than chicken and more spinach since I wasn't getting enough iron in my diet
  • Salads made from vegetables with blue cheese instead of a few leaves of lettuce, croutons from a package and sugar-laden bottled dressing
  • NO Genetically Modified Foods (that I am aware of)
So how did I score in 2013 compared to 2007? I assumed that my cholesterol would have gone up since I'm now eating whole eggs, hard cheeses and more red meat. But a strange thing happened. My overall cholesterol fell by forty points with the biggest drop being in my "bad" LDL cholesterol! 


My current LDL is a mere 78! My numbers are all optimum! But wait, there's another surprise. In 2007, 29% of my calories were coming from fat and about 19 grams of that was saturated. In 2013 I am averaging 34% of my calories from fat with 26 grams of it being saturated. Doesn't this go against what we read over and over? Shouldn't my cholesterol have gone UP? This is only my profile and reaction to the 1950s diet, so I of course would never claim that if you do the same you will have the same results.

Here's some more data. My average fiber intake in 2007 was 21 grams. Today it's 36! I can see that eating more whole foods, veggies and fruits while cutting out all pre-packaged junk and refined carbs has made a difference. 

Finally, 24% of my diet came from protein in 2007. Even though I'm now eating hard cheese and more red meat my overall protein consumption has dropped to an average of 18% of my diet. I am finding that the smaller portions of what I am eating are overall more satisfying. So while I am eating more fat and more of the "bad" kind I am balancing it with eating more real, whole fiber foods and a more active lifestyle and weight loss.

People in the know will point out that there were more deaths in the 1950s due to heart disease then today. But those same people should also know that smoking is a major contributor to heart disease and smoking rates have declined significantly since then:
Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.
Additionally, there are more drug treatments today then the 1950s. 

Wouldn't you love to see a controlled study on the effects of a 1950s diet on the weight and cholesterol levels on overweight non-smokers? While the 1950s offers hard proof that the eating practices of Americans led to an overall thinner nation, we shouldn't assume that what they ate was solely responsible for an increase risk in heart disease.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

What is your biggest challenge in 2013 to living a fit lifestyle?

I'd like to know what you find most difficult about making healthy choices in 2013! Please sound off in the comments below. I might do a future blog post with some 1950s suggestions to help!

Request Line: "End of the Skinny Girl" from Yahoo! "Healthy Living"

Update: May 16th: H&M plus size model Jennie Runk is now a hero and role model for women for body acceptance. She tells the BBC that she is helping women accept their bodies and gain confidence in how they look, despite THIS:  

"I was given the option to lose weight and try to maintain a size four (a UK six or eight), or to gain a little - maintain a size 10 (a UK 12 or 14) - and start a career as a plus-size model. I knew my body was never meant to be a size four, so I went with plus."

She changed her body to please someone else, and that someone wasn't her doctor. 

****************

May 2nd, 2013:

Slender 50s Model
Blog reader Norma asked me to write about this article covering the new H&M plus sized swimsuit model and I couldn't resist! It starts off with a complaint:

"Hands down, there's nothing more frustrating than flipping through a swimsuit catalog filled with tanned, stick-thin, bikini-clad models lounging in boats and hammocks."

I can think of many things far more frustrating, can't you? The writers must live charmed lives! 

H&M comes to their rescue featuring a plus size model. As I mentioned in my 1950s vs Today mannequin post, I think it's not only welcome for many women to see a variety of body sizes modeling clothing but it makes good business sense if that's what your demographic wants. However, I need to comment on some very unhealthy 2013 messages.



I pulled the following phrases out from the article that were used to describe overweight women:

normal, healthy proportions
normal-sized women 
celebration of healthier body types
healthy bodies staging a comeback
women with healthier-looking bodies
relatable but also aspirational

Beverly Hills based psychotherapist Bethany Marshall offers this as a positive result of such advertising campaigns: "The more we're exposed to them, the more we consider their body types normal."

Why does the choice for women looking to be healthy and beautiful in a swimsuit come down to the extremes of anorexia or obesity? Why the steady drumbeat of overweight = normal = healthy? Why are we being trained to look to mannequins and models and Kim Kardashian (no one is buying that one!) as medical guideposts to health? 

The healthy goal for women should be to empower ourselves by defining our health based upon science and consultations with our doctors and not Kim Kardashian, H&M and apparently Yahoo! Healthy Living.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

American Women Didn't Get Fat in the 50s eBook Update!


Update 5/15/13: I received this feedback from an agent I approached:

"I think your premise is interesting & thought-provoking, and I don't doubt that you could put together a book that would appeal and be useful to readers. That said I'm going to reluctantly pass on representing it. As you may know, while there are lots of books out there on weight and diet, publishers tend to look for authors who have medical credentials in the obesity field and/or a major platform, eg, national TV appearances, a TV show, frequent appearances in major print publications, a very large following online (6 figures or more), etc. Without those, it will be hard if impossible to sell a book to a publisher, since more and more they expect authors to bring a large built-in audience for the books they acquire."

I'm a bit confused as to why one would need an agent at that point! Also, there are plenty of diet books written by non-medical experts. I don't claim to be one or offer medical advice, just cite medical sources from a saner time. Anyway, back to self-publishing. I like to do my own thing, anyway.


Update 5/13/13: What's happening is that while copy editing my book I'm taking some things out but then I'm adding more to it. Will I ever finish this thing?! I'm starting to think I should find an agent who can shop my manuscript to reputable publishers. If I got a book deal I could get an advance to finance my time spent on making this what I want it to be. I just haven't had any time to think about that up until now.

I will let you in on a secret. I was approached by a (real, not vanity press) publisher in December. They were not the right fit for me or my book. I also learned through the process that negotiating a book deal is very time-consuming and expensive as I would never sign anything without having a lawyer review it. Royalties, rights, distribution: lots to consider.

But just as important is editorial control. I welcome a professional copy editor who does some wordsmithing and minor changes, but I can't agree to my book message being diluted or even the opposite, made to be purposefully offensive to generate controversy. Those of you who have been reading for a while know that while I say things that are maybe hard to hear, I do it from a place of tough love. Having said that, the statement: "You're fat because you eat too much" is a novel and scandalous idea in 2013!

I am doing my best. Stick with me through this process, please!

Update 4/11/13: I've finished writing the final draft of my eBook! Next steps:
  • Print it out and read it from start to finish, then copyedit.
  • Have my husband read it from start to finish and give me feedback.
  • Register the copyright with the Library of Congress.
  • Format it for eReaders. This is the most daunting aspect right now.
  • Figure out how to market it on a budget of zero.
I appreciate your understanding that my blog posts here may be lean during this process.

2/16/13: I'm happy to report that I'm now working on my final draft, ideally ready for you to read this summer! I have decided to self-publish via Kindle. Don't own one? Me either! You do not need Kindle to read a Kindle ebook!

My book concept, dream and goal was initially four parts:
  1. A heavily research-based section which illustrates some of the causes of overweight today compared to the 1950s and dispels some common myths about the 50s diet. I think some people would find the information very surprising and maybe even shocking. It's not dry reading!
  2. The pitfalls of the thinking, culture and habits of today that can lead to obesity countered with alternatives based upon the 1950s approach. I do this in the spirit of tough love, just like my blog, and it’s written in palatable short sections with snappy titles.
  3. Excerpts from my collection of 1950s diet books and articles with my own thoughts added. 
  4. Snark-Free Cookery: The Lighter Side of Fifties Fare recipes.
Because certain portions of my book are heavily research-based with extensive citations which are not Kindle and e-book friendly, and I'm working in MS Word which is being a brat (being nice) and I don't have the budget to hire someone to handle the formatting and conversion issues, I'm going to be distilling and removing a lot of it. I'll be saving it for future blog updates and/or articles.

The larger book will now be three smaller, separate virtual books. That way I can focus on one section at a time and then publish, and each works as a stand-alone. I have to work with the realities of my resources and this is the only way things are going to get done around here!

So #1 and #2 are going to be combined to be published first (as the current title American Women Didn't Get Fat in the 50s) and will interest most of my blog readers, I think, since it's what I talk about here. #3 and #4 will be stand-alone booklets.

This project, while something I am passionate about, has been very challenging. I don't know if I'll recoup the funds I've invested or make a profit, but I'm so excited about my message and the subject matter is fascinating to me that I hope it will be all worth it!

I do have a question for you! What do you think about a title change? I want to know which you like better and why. Please let me know- your opinions matter!

American Women Didn't Get Fat in the 50s
1950s diet secrets from slimmer times

OR

The 1950s Diet
Slimming secrets from slender women of the 1950s

(I'd like to give a shout-out to my friend Johnny Virgil  over at 15 Minute Lunch for his encouragement along the way. Check out his very funny Kindle book about growing up in the 1970s, The Snitch, Houdini and Me). 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Snack-Free Babies: 1950s Gerber Baby Food vs 2013

1950 ad for Gerber Liver which is no longer produced.
I came across an ad for Gerber Baby food for "Graduates" which includes a line of highly processed, fatty and salty "snacks!"

"Lil Crunchies" processed snack by Gerber for "Graduates"

Seems to me that the implication is that babies get to "graduate" into eating just like the rest of America: snacking between meals and choosing processed foods with added fats, sugar and salt. Here's the line-up for 1953:

No highly processed foods here!
According to my research, Gerber didn't have a line of snacks for babies in the 1950s; it appears to be just meals and desserts.

Gerber "Junior" Foods
Even the so-called "Junior" foods, perhaps the equivalent of today's "Graduates" line, didn't offer mothers crunchy, fatty salty snacks to feed their little ones.

Another thing possibly present in Gerber Baby Food today that wasn't in the 1950s: Genetically Modified Food. I asked Gerber on their Facebook page. 


Let's see if and how they respond and I will update. The word on the street is that Gerber does in fact use GMOs.

Update: They DELETED my question. I scrolled down and did find this: