http://seamonkey-mags.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] seamonkey-mags.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] vintageads 2010-08-03 03:15 am (UTC)

Not exactly. I don't know how you could compare rates of enjoyment of being outdoors with now. And you're not considering the poorer sort of people who wouldn't have a heck of a lot of time for cavorting, just the same as today. And, you know, the Great Depression.

There were fewer prepared foods, yes.

But then they also had a whole lot of diseases and illnesses that medicine couldn't deal with. Polio, rickets, scarlet fever, infections, tuberculosis, occupational hazards. Refrigerators were a luxury.

It's not quite "things were great back in the day." Life expectancy was 59.7 years in the 30s vs 77.8 in 2005.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States -- note some of the estimates of malnourished children under "Facts and Figures")

Anyway, fat does not necessarily equate poor health, much as thinness doesn't necessarily mean good health.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting