[FaithBW]

I've never used Joy of Cooking but I know a lot of people do. I thought it was interesting that some of the recipes have increased in calories since 1936. A study was done to look at recipes that were staples in the cookbook and here are the results:

Published as a letter Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the report examined 18 classic recipes found in seven editions of the book from 1936 to 2006. It found that calorie counts for 14 of the recipes have ballooned by an average of 928 calories, or 44%, per recipe. And serving sizes have grown as well.

Overall, the scientists found, changes in ingredients and serving sizes led to a 63% increase in calories per serving in 17 of the recipes between 1936 and 2006.

"When we talk about obesity, people like to plant the source of the issue on away-from-home dining," said Brian Wansink, the study's co-author and director of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab. "But that raised the thought in my mind: Is that really the source of things?. . . . What has happened in what we've been doing in our own homes over the years?"

Read the rest here.

[babes315]

That is interesting and reminds me of an article that I read that said that the Toll House chocolate chip cookie recipe on the bag now makes a lot less cookies than it used to, as the size of the cookie has increase. The recipe used to tell you to drop the dough by rounded HALF teaspoons and maded 100 cookies, now it says to drop the dough by rounded TABLESPOONS and it makes only 60 cookies!

[Misora]

... you know I think I need to go out and get an old copy now!

[kaplods]

I was watching a collectibles show recently and an antique dealer was saying that collectors of old china will seek out serving platters to use as dinner plates, because they the dinner plates are too small. He said that many, many times customers will look at a collection of antique china and will complain that there are only salad plates "where are the dinner plates" they will ask, and he will tell them "those are the dinner plates," and customers won't believe him - they think he's trying to cheat or con them, believing that the dinner plates were lost or broken.

I guess people don't want to believe that as a nation, we're eating that much more today (but it explains a lot).

Hubby and I were just talking about this the other day when we stopped at Hardees. I ordered a small diet soda and a burger without the bun. My hubby ordered a medium soda with his burger and when we got our cups - I realized and commented that my "small" was larger than the "large" at McDonald's when I was a kid. On the window were advertisements for their "little" thickburger with "only" 1/4 lb of beef - remember when the quarter pounder at McDonald's was considered a "big" sandwhich and the Big Mac was for "big appetites." Now you see 10 year olds with a Big Mac and large fries.

[Anna77]

All of these posts were very interesting. I'd also add to that, 'kingsize' candy bars...when we were kids, the regular size was plenty.
I found this online; I'd post the link if I could.
How about clothing sizes? Retailers are giving relatively large clothing a lower, more flattering size label, a practice known in the industry as "vanity sizing."
Vanity sizing is becoming so widespread that it's creating a vacuum at the lower end of the size range as lower and lower labels are commandeered to serve larger-sized clothes. Dozens of retailers have already adopted a “size 0” label for clothes that used to be size 2 or 4; some are even turning to “double 0” labels to cater to their more petite customers.