And by “today’s standards”, I mean “general American’s perception of how a person looks.”
It just started because I was looking for the old Bayer heroin ads (and I also found a nice cocaine toothache drops ad, as well). I saw a bunch of vintage medication ads, and found this one:
What really strikes me is that the two people are clearly meant to be those obese patients. Yet I’m willing to bet that many (perhaps most?) Americans today would consider them “a bit overweight” or “a bit chubby”. Hell, when I’m out and about, at least half of the people I see are at least this size, if not larger. I think you’d have to add a good 50, even 100, pounds to those women in that ad for many people today to think, “they are obese”.
Obviously I don’t have cites to back that up, but I don’t think I’m too far off the mark. I find that ad fascinating for the juxtaposition of the then and now differences in obesity.
Well, consider that my location up there :: points :: is basically Fat City (my cite ), I might be a bit biased. But I think many people around here would say that yes, they’re definitely overweight (the one with her back facing the photo more so, since you can see how broad her back is) and rather large, people would say, “they’re pretty big, but it’s not like they’re actually obese or anything.”
And although the stats have backed it up for quite some time, it’s striking to know just how much more common people of that size (or larger) are today compared to at the time of that ad.
Onceuponatime, in National Lampoon, there was a four-panel cartoon illustrating how the same size man would be looked upon in different eras as viewed by a Mom talking to daughter. I am drawing upon faulty memory, but I recall one said, “My, how prosperous your Dad looks!” as he struts by, ca. late 1800’s, with a paunch, gold watch, cigar, and vest.
Another era, same size and age figure, in shorts, perspiring and jogging, ca. 1970’s. Mom says, “If your Dad doesn’t lose some weight soon, he’ll have a heart attack!”
The moral: styles change. Once, obesity was a sign of prosperity.
From a medical standpoint, yes those women were and are obese. But I would agree that by modern day US standards, neither woman would be popularly considered so. “Overweight” yes, but not obese.
Heck, I have to fight to convince most people that Night Elves in World of Warcraft have a healthy figure as opposed to being unhealthily thin. True, I would guess that the percentage of people who are overweight goes up when it comes to online socialising.
I’ve noticed in CostCo, most of the customers are not overweight while in Wal-Mart most of the customers are. I believe the mean income of a CostCo customer is around $60,000 (read that somewhere, but I have no idea where). I’m not sure what the mean income of a Wal-Mart customer is, but I bet it’s significantly lower.
Just cause there are MORE people that are as big or heavier, doesn’t change the fact of the actual condition. Obese isn’t a term based on average sizes.
But that was kind of my point. The actual medical condition of obesity isn’t what I was talking about, but the average person’s perception of it. I agree they are obese, medically-speaking.
They look obese to me, and I’m about that size. I do think some of it is regional, which also includes socio-economic. I feel much better about my relative attractiveness when I’m hanging out with my peeps in Kentucky and Indiana than I do here on the fitness-obsessed north side of Chicago. I feel positively svelte sometimes!
It depends what you think the word means. IIRC, the medical definition of obese is something like 25% heavier than ideal weight. By that definition those women are certainly obese, as you say.
I’ve always taken “obese” to mean “someone who’s overweight to the point it could affect their health,” which is pretty much in line with the 25% criteria. If you’re a 6’0" man and should weigh 185 and you weigh 245, that’s obese. But I think some people take “obese” to mean “comically fat,” e.g. to the point it begins to seriously impair the person’s ability to engage in physical activity, in which case they are not.
It’s one of those “bizarre womens’ sizing” effects. Your size has more to do with your shape (small waist/no waist, wide hips/narrow hips, etc) than with your numerical weight. I think.
Sure it does, especially in a dress- you have to buy a dress which fits the largest measurement. But that’s part of the reason why saying the “The average American woman now stands 5’4”, and weighs 140 pounds, wearing a size 14 dress." sounds strange. I’m 5’, weigh 140, and wear a size 10- both on top and the bottom. For someone to be my weight, 4 inches taller, and 2 sizes bigger, they’d have to be more out of proportion than most women seem to be- like they would need a size 14 on top and a size 8 on the bottom or vice versa.
I’m really skeptical that ad is from 1959. The font and the layout look like late sixties/early seventies. I checked out the decodog site and I know that’s what they have listed but just compare to the other ads. They have another Ambar ad from 1958 that uses a completely different and more period correct font while the ads from the late sixties look more like what you posted.
That stat is probably just going off of standard women’s sizing which seems off compared with how clothes are currently sized in the stores. Compare the previous chart to this chart (for Diane Von Furstenberg who is actually sized smaller than most) I’m 5’5" between 130 and 135 and wear anything from a 2 to a 8. Going by the first chart I linked, I’d probably wear a 14.
