My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

To think that people were thinner

245 replies

Elfina · 09/02/2014 14:06

In the past in the UK, up until about the 80s because food was less 'interesting'; less variety, seasoning etc so because it didn't taste that amazing you'd just eat your full and no more?

OP posts:
Report
kaumana · 18/02/2014 22:10

I'm so glad that we did not read your bollox.

Report
kaumana · 18/02/2014 21:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

fascicle · 18/02/2014 21:10

Hmmm. I think fantasy land is more your thing.

Report
kaumana · 18/02/2014 21:06

Have fun playing with the Oompa Loompas...

Report
fascicle · 18/02/2014 21:04

I'm just questioning illogical arguments which appear to have no basis.

Report
kaumana · 18/02/2014 20:56

I'm not sure why you are picking a fight over this.

The original film had a much smaller actor to exhibit carrying a few extra pounds.

Report
fascicle · 18/02/2014 20:42

kaumana
I thought the two pics were interesting in how we view an overweight person in different decades.

The only thing we can infer from the pictures is that the 2005 Augustus Gloop was larger than the 1971 Augustus Gloop. There is no evidence to suggest that this has anything to do with how overweight people are viewed in different decades. As I said before, the fatter, more recent Augustus Gloop looks like a more faithful representation of the written character.

The casting director cast the actor/ padded him out to look overweight to what was considered overweight at that time.

Presumably you are talking about the actor in the 1971 film. Where did you read/hear that he was padded out to look overweight?

(It's a shame I don't know more about the 1971 film. When I was a child, one of the Oompa Loompa actors came to our house for lunch.)

Report
kaumana · 18/02/2014 19:38

I thought the two pics were interesting in how we view an overweight person in different decades.

Regardless of how the original story describes the character.

The casting director cast the actor/ padded him out to look overweight to what was considered overweight at that time.

Report
Sirzy · 18/02/2014 18:44

He may not be as large as his character but he looks large to me.

Report
fridgepants · 18/02/2014 18:10

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the user's request.

fascicle · 18/02/2014 08:26

Willow, the term and concept of obesity would not have been commonly used by the public in the 70s (it would be even more remarkable for children to be thinking in those terms).

So I really doubt that anybody would have considered Augustus Gloop in the 1971 film as being obese, especially if the book had been read first. The description in the book is of a child who sounds much, much fatter than the film's AG. So the question for people who read the book then saw the film might have been why AG appeared to be much slimmer than Roald Dahl's creation.

Roald Dahl's description of Augustus Gloop:
'...a nine-year-old boy who was so enormously fat he looked as though he had been blown up with a powerful pump. Great flabby folds of fat bulged out from every part of his body, and his face was like a monstrous ball of dough with two small greedy curranty eyes peering out upon the world'.

Report
WillowJoinInOurCrufae · 17/02/2014 18:50

I do see your point fascicle. However it doesn't alter the fact that when we watched Willy Wonka in the 1970s we thought of Augustus Gloop as being obese. Looking at him now (even if you ignore the 2005 version) he doesn't look that overweight.

Report
fascicle · 17/02/2014 18:03

Willow, the larger boy in the second image - from the 2005 remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, as opposed to the 1971 original - is a better representation of Roald Dahl's description of Augustus Gloop, and he's also a closer match to the illustration of AG in the 1974 edition of the book I have. I therefore think those images are unrelated to perceptions of obesity over recent decades.

Report
TalkinPeace · 17/02/2014 17:47

the "fat girl" from my class at school is often in sleb mags
she's the same size she always was
everybody else has got fatter

Report
WillowJoinInOurCrufae · 17/02/2014 16:59

This is an interesting illustration of what we considered to be obese in the 1970's compared to the 21st century.

weknowmemes.com/2011/12/image-of-childhood-obesity-1971-vs-2005/

Report
fascicle · 17/02/2014 16:53

TalkinPeace
Have you actually read that link
she is warning that people with a borderline BMI might be at risk
and advocates the height waist measure I mentioned up thread

I wouldn't put up a link I hadn't read. I suggest you read it with a little more circumspection - she's talking about how BMI can miss some individuals who are at risk, and identify some who aren't at risk, because body shape/fat distribution aren't considered. She refers to another limitation - BMI measurements being derived from Caucasion populations, which may not be accurate for other groups. Yes, she uses the height waist measurement you mentioned earlier. No, she didn't credit you in her article.

Report
TalkinPeace · 17/02/2014 16:27

Tulip
BMI was thought up over 150 years ago
FFS the man from Met life used it in his calculations in the 1950's

find me a link to prove it WAS thought up in the 1970's Hmm

Report
TalkinPeace · 17/02/2014 16:26

fascicle
Have you actually read that link
she is warning that people with a borderline BMI might be at risk
and advocates the height waist measure I mentioned up thread

BMI is one measure
combine several
and THEN get to a healthy weight on all of them
for most of the population it just involves self control and self discipline

Report
Tulip26 · 17/02/2014 16:23

talkinpeace Please don't accuse me of talking crap. I was told about BMI by a nurse and have since found evidence to back it up. If you're going to quote me please use everything I've said, not just one small part. And please, please don't use wikipedia as a source for your information, if you did that in any medical institution they'd laugh you out of the building.

Report
fascicle · 17/02/2014 16:17

Duckworth
I hate to say it, but the arguments from fascicle and sing are excellent examples of the apologist direction society is taking, and are not least of the reasons for the obesity epidemic we are seeing.

You believe that refusing to mock overweight people contributes to the obesity epidemic? Please show me some research to support this bonkers argument.

As for BMI, there's endless information available to show its limitations, and failure to take into account body shape and fat distribution. Here's a piece from Dr Margaret Ashwell on the subject:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12481427

Report
TalkinPeace · 17/02/2014 15:20

Tulip26
You know BMI is originally a scale used to measure children? It was invented in the 70's.
You are talking rubbish
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

Report
TeacupDrama · 17/02/2014 15:15

being obese has a negative health impact being morbidly obese even more so, however, being in overweight category according to medical research makes not too much difference, life span for the overweight is actually slightly longer than normal BMI

if you do have a heart attack or stroke the outcomes for the marginally overweight are actually better than for lower BMI's
for the elderly this matters even more as the underweight and lower end of normal BMI means body has less reserves to deal with illnesses

this does not mean being hugely overweight is good but in terms of health having a BMI of 27 instead of under 25 does not matter medically that much

I agree with above poster that if you are a stone overweight being 2 stone then does not seem to be too bad either; you can't become obese without being overweight first

however a slim person that is slim because they exist on sugary tea and fags is not healthy just because they are slim they would be better off stopping smoking and putting on a stone, the 1 stone ( not 2,3 or more) would damage their health far less than the fags

my other concern is that people say healthy range of BMI is 20-25 but the nearer to 20 the better when actually there is not a single shred of evidence that a BMI of 20 is any healthier than 25

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Sirzy · 17/02/2014 15:01

But Duckworth - if you have the HEALTHY lifestyle then the chances of that weight going up are slimmer. We could argue then that we shouldn't be happy at being a healthy weight because we may put weight on, indeed that should be a real concern for those who are currently a healthy weight but have poor eating and exercise habits because in the long term then that could easily cause trouble for them.

Report
Tulip26 · 17/02/2014 14:55

You know BMI is originally a scale used to measure children? It was invented in the 70's. Don't take it as gospel. You can be only 20% overweight and be classed as obese. So if you weigh 12st instead of 10st, you'll be classed as obese even if you're a boxer or rugby player.

Report
TalkinPeace · 17/02/2014 14:42

Look at this picture
livewell-la.com/wp-content/uploads/125-lb-person.png
the fat on the thighs will make her knees hurt
the fat around the organs will kill her
better to have as little as possible

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.