1930s Cookbook Recipe Portion Sizes were Smaller

[Paisley]

From today's Denver Post:

Portion distortion, the trend of eating larger and larger servings, is as much a problem with recipes as it is with restaurants and has been going on even longer, a study published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine found.

The study, which looked at how classic recipes have changed during the past 70 years, found a nearly 40 percent increase in calories per serving for nearly every recipe reviewed, about an extra 77 calories.

"So much finger-pointing is going on at away-from-home dining it really takes the focus off where we could probably have the most immediate influence," said Cornell University marketing professor Brian Wansink, who directed the study.

The study identified the trend in numerous cookbooks, but it focused on American kitchen icon "Joy of Cooking," first published during the '30s and regularly updated with new editions since then, most recently in 2006.

Those editions gave researchers a continuity of recipes from which to draw their data, Wansink said.​

Read on:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11719180

 

[Fletch]

Could it be the trend toward feeding x number of people in individually plated, test-kitchen calculated portions, instead of feeding a family in approximate, pot-and-ladle helpings, is in part responsible?

 

[Paisley]

To quote from the article,

And changes in "Joy of Cooking" have been going on for a while. Increases in overall calories per recipe have been gradual, but portion sizes tended to jump, first during the '40s, again during the '60s, and with the largest jump in the 2006 edition.
....
In the cookbook, a popular chocolate-chip cookie recipe that decades before produced 100 cookies, made only 60 during the '80s, though no ingredients had changed.​

They don't account for the reason the portion sizes have grown. I would have guessed that with so many people wanting to lose weight now, portion sizes would have decreased, or at least not jumped, in the 2006 edition.

 

[just_me]

They don't account for the reason the portion sizes have grown. I would have guessed that with so many people wanting to lose weight now, portion sizes would have decreased, or at least not jumped, in the 2006 edition.

People may say they want to lose weight, but I suspect in most cases based on portions in restaurants, they don't really want to reduce how much they eat. [huh]

 

[CopperNY]

remember when Coke came in 8oz. bottles?

my grandparents would usually have -one- egg with toast in the morning, coffee and a sandwich at lunch with the moderate meat/potato meal for dinner.

servings have gotten insane.

just the other day my coworker asked what i was having for dinner. "Shrimp Scampi." "Really? Are you having it with steak, pork....fish?" "No, just scampi." Really? You must be on a diet."

it really is a mindset. most of my friends (as part of my informal survey) would rather sacrifice quality for amount. they expect to be torpid before they will leave the table.

i may seem a bit harsh, but as one who was a morbidly obese child (until around 14), i've really taken a hard look at nutrition and eating habits.

 

[Paisley]

People may say they want to lose weight, but I suspect in most cases based on portions in restaurants, they don't really want to reduce how much they eat. [huh]

Probably so. Anyone who thinks a restaurant serving is too much can order just an appetizer, ask that half the meal be wrapped up before it's served, or split a dish with a companion.

My sister-in-law blames her parents for her being overweight because they made her clean her plate. She left home decades ago; I'm not sure what her excuse is now.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Look at old juice glasses, it's obvious portions were smaller.

Refrigerators are bigger. Plates, drinking glasses, serving dishes, pots, pans, silverware and other utensils are bigger now. Fruits and vegetables are bigger, chickens are bigger. Cartons of ice cream are smaller, though.

 

[LizzieMaine]

All part of the whole "Bigger is BETTER" mindset that postwar America binged on for so long. It annoys me mightily that the smallest Coke I can buy in the store is twice the size of the ones I used to drink as a child: if I only drink half of it, I feel guilty about waste, and if I drink the whole thing I feel guilty about the waist. Feh.

 

[Paisley]

What a portion is

I'm not sure what portion sizes were in the 30s, but my cookbook Eating for Life gives a definition: a portion is about the size of your fist or the palm of your hand. For me, that's like half an apple and half a can of tuna (one portion each). Or two thin slices of bread and two slices of ham. (Of course, you can use condiments and spices.) Or two ounces pasta (uncooked volume), spaghetti sauce, and meatballs made with 3 to 4 ounces of meat. The book recommends eating six such meals per day, along with at least two portions of vegetables (celery, peas, lettuce, tomatoes, etc.). Even so, I'll skip meal #6 if I'm not that hungry.

 

[just_me]

Or how about when you go into a restaurant (usually fast food) and they don't have a small size soda. Like calling the smallest soda a medium really fools anyone.

Me: "Can I have a small diet coke, please?"
Server: "We don't have small sodas."
Me: "Can I have the smallest size soda you have?"
Server: "That's a medium."
Me: "Oooo kaaaaay."

Sheesh.

 

[jamespowers]

I am not sure I agree with what this is saying here.
Number one is that these people obviously haven't eaten anything my grandparents did back in the day. They could really set a table with plenty of food. I am sure they ate more calories back then than they did later in life.
I just look at my wife's cookbooks from the 1930s and before and find recipes that call for a whole stick of butter quite easily. That is just for waffle batter too. Cookies the same thing.
You sure they didn't factor in the fact that many periods involved there encompass a depression where they had to make do with little (lower to much lower calories from 1929-1941) and further rationing during the war years (1941-1945).
That would skew quite a bit of calorie numbers for nearly twenty years right there. Cook books deal with what the average person would be able to find much less afford. Perhaps they need to look at that a bit further. [huh]

 

[Paisley]

From the article (I might as well have posted the whole thing):

Of the 18 recipes published in all seven editions [of Joy of Cooking], 17 increased in calories per serving. That can be attributed partly to a jump in total calories per recipe (about 567 calories), but also to larger portion sizes.

....

Much of the change can be attributed to money. Relative to household income, food is cheaper than during the '30s. So recipes once padded with less expensive (and lower calorie) ingredients such as beans now often have more meat, Wansink said.​

Again, I don't see why, in 2006, portion sized would have needed increase *again*.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Take two and butter 'em while they're hot.

I can see jamespowers' side of it, too. Even with a small plate, a person could have had second or third helpings.

 

[jamespowers]

I can see jamespowers' side of it, too. Even with a small plate, a person could have had second or third helpings.

Fourth and fifth as well.
I mean really, the past was a time of eating till you passed out. My great uncle once won a bet by eating 18 hard bolied eggs in one setting. Didn't eat anything else for two days but I am just saying.....lol lol

 

[jamespowers]

From the article (I might as well have posted the whole thing):

Of the 18 recipes published in all seven editions [of Joy of Cooking], 17 increased in calories per serving. That can be attributed partly to a jump in total calories per recipe (about 567 calories), but also to larger portion sizes.

....

Much of the change can be attributed to money. Relative to household income, food is cheaper than during the '30s. So recipes once padded with less expensive (and lower calorie) ingredients such as beans now often have more meat, Wansink said.​

Again, I don't see why, in 2006, portion sized would have needed go increase *again*.

That and you couldn't get some of the things we can get today. Rationing made beans go farrrrrrrr.
I am not sure whose portion they are watching as a plate back then is the same plate I eat off of now.

 

[jamespowers]

I did a little reasearch on this guy Wansink. It seems he is backed by groups like Sandage Charitable Trust, Illinois Attorney General, Illinois Soy Association, and The Council for Agricultural Research and other "consumer groups.". These groups are not in it for the good of all people. They have an agenda. They are the same food nazis that went after buttered popcorn in theaters then chinese food and on and on. They won't be happy until we are eating rocks and twigs.
I'll take this guy's findings with a stick of butter.

 

[Paisley]

I think it's just going by how many portions the recipes say they make. Naturally, how many portions people actually eat may vary.

I just talked to someone who said he recently bought new plates and noticed they were bigger. They were square, and just as wide as the old round ones, but the corners made them bigger. And they were deeper. They were so big they barely fit in his cupboard and dishwasher.

 

[jamespowers]

I think it's just going by how many portions the recipes say they make. Naturally, how many portions people actually eat may vary.

I just talked to someone who said he recently bought new plates and noticed they were bigger. They were square, and just as wide as the old round ones, but the corners made them bigger. And they were deeper. They were so big they barely fit in his cupboard and dishwasher.

I don't know. Did you know that Wansink also has a weight loss book out?
Perhaps this article from bias watch might bring some light on the subject:
http://seethirty.wordpress.com/2009...marketing-professor-defends-brand-name-foods/

Bias Watch: Cornell University marketing professor defends brand-name foods.


Cornell University, under the direction of marketing professor Brian Wansink, conducted a study supposedly focused on how classic recipes have changed over the years. However, they seemed to point their study at one particular cookbook, “Joy of Cooking”, published by Scribner.

Their explanation, was that “Joy of Cooking” has been around since the 1930’s and regularly updated up to recently, although they claimed to identify trends in numerous cookbooks. Their study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Wansink says he came up with the study because everyone seemed to be directing attention on restaurants and brand-name packaged food, and he wondered if it wasn’t shifting attention from other culprits.

Of course, restaurants and packaged foods are marketable items, and he’s a professor of marketing. So, it stands to reason he’d want to conduct a study that attempts to move blame from items big corporations produce to something else. Plus, there’s this long-held theory that when you enter into a study with a pre-expected outcome, it tends to invalidate that study. He admittedly was seeking to blame something other than dining out and eating packaged foods for unhealthy eating, and, wow, he just happened to find a target. What a coincidence.

In defense of “Joy of Cooking”, it wasn’t named “Slim of Cooking”, so it’s probably safe to conclude it isn’t a diet cookbook. However, it is probably safe to conclude there are at least a few recipes in there that would classify as light dining.

In a not too surprising twist, Brian Wansink is the author of a book about overeating. Vested interest, perhaps? The scope of his study doesn’t actually examine how people use the cookbooks in their kitchens, only the printed text on their pages. So, his findings could be accurate, or fairly baseless. I guess having a panel of people use the books in a real environment was beyond the scope, although it would have provided practical data and credibility. It’s like conducting a study of gardening books, and not planting anything. For the record, a good number of people were dissatisfied with the 2006 “Joy of Cooking” edition, claiming the recipes were changed. A little research on Wansink’s part could have revealed this, and possibly did. It might explain why they focused primarily on this book.

Methinks the professor doth protest too much.
I also think the media buys into anything a guy in a white coat says without doing the due diligence first.

 

[H.Johnson]

The French Paradox

This is a variant on the well-known 'French Paradox' - the fact that French people are statistically shown to be slimmer and lighter than Americans.

A serious hypothesis was considered that there was a genetic reason for the lower body mass of les Francaises (who generally eat a fat-rich diet) until a comparative study of restaurant portion sizes by the University of Pennsylvania and CNRS in Paris showed....smaller portions - the French eat less! :eusa_doh:

I could have told them that!

Available at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/smaller_portions.pdf

 

[jamespowers]

This is a variant on the well-known 'French Paradox' - the fact that French people are statistically shown to be slimmer and lighter than Americans.

A serious hypothesis was considered that there was a genetic reason for the lower body mass of les Francaises (who generally eat a fat-rich diet) until a comparative study of restaurant portion sizes by the University of Pennsylvania and CNRS in Paris showed....smaller portions - the French eat less! :eusa_doh:

I could have told them that!

Available at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/smaller_portions.pdf

The most sentient thing written there is:
"The French paradox is a paradox only if one assumes that level of
fat or saturated fat in the diet (or blood cholesterol) is the major cause
of cardiovascular disease. Recent analyses suggest that the importance
of fat intake as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease has been greatly
exaggerated (Taubes, 2001). There are many other possible accounts
of the French paradox (Rozin, 1999), including (a) genetically based
metabolic differences; (b) the possibility that life in France may be
generally less stressful, or in particular that life around food may be
less stressful (Rozin, 1999; Rozin et al., 1999); (c) differences in attitudes
to illness (the French are less focused on outside influences such
as germs, toxins, and fat; Payer, 1988); (d) the fact that the French
have a different daily pattern of eating; and (e) the possibility that the
French get more exercise than Americans."
They just forgot to add that the French drink more red wine than we do.