American Women Didn't Get Fat in the 1950s

[leafy_greens]

I have read this Kindle book by Averyl Hill and highly recommend it. Her theory that the reason women were thinner in the 1950s is because they cooked and ate real food, and didn't live in a fat-acceptance culture (politically correct.) She goes through the old medical charts and studies and compares them to today. I noticed a lot of No S parallels in this book.

I was a bit shocked at the amount of cultural shaming that was in effect to keep people thin back then (a "fattie" board game for kids - don't eat the junk food!) Clothing sizes have also dramatically changed. Normal looking kids these days were considered "plus size" in the 1950s. For what it's worth, there was a much lower incidence of eating disorders in the 1950s, as well.

From what I have compared in my own readings, the 1950s cultural shaming towards obesity is similar to the current French cultural shaming towards obesity. Some may think that it is cruel, but getting "soft" on fat has apparently made us more fat and has not reversed the incidence of disordered eating.

American Women Didn't Get Fat in the 1950s is not a specific, prescribed diet. It takes a look at the culture, attitudes, medical advice and eating practices during that time period with suggestions on how you can apply an "outdated" way of eating, thinking and moving to your life.

American Women Didn't Get Fat in the 1950s

She also has a blog.

[wosnes]

I follow her blog sporadically and I've sampled the book on my Kindle, but haven't purchased it yet. I'm surprised at how many ads and literature from the 50s come out and use the word "fat." Though I grew up in the 50s, I don't remember that. I probably wasn't paying that much attention.

[BrightAngel]

I'm surprised at how many ads and literature from the 50s come out and use the word "fat."
Though I grew up in the 50s, I don't remember that.
I probably wasn't paying that much attention.

I also grew up in the 1950s, and I paid a LOT of Attention to the word "fat".
I remember very well how often the word fat was used... especially about me personally.
My parents, my brother, and others often referred to me as "fat",
even though I had a 5'1" height and a 105 lb weight.

Partly this was because I developed very early, purberty for me began at age 9
and gave me curves which the other girls my age did not have.

From that age forward, I was in an early adolescence.
My height at age 9 was the same as my current petite adult height.
My weight was within the BMI "normal" range --
within the bottom one-fourth of "normal" at the onset of puberty in elementary school.

However, despite the combination of my own efforts and my mother's efforts to restrict my food intake,
by age 12 my weight climbed to the top of the BMI overweight range.
My mother insisted that my doctor do something, and he readily gave me diet pills.

By taking the pills and further restricting my food intake,
I got my weight down to the middle of a "normal" BMI ...
however this was STILL considered "fat" or rather "plump" by my peers ... and my family.
My weight fluctuated within the top half of the "normal" range during my high school years.
however, I dieted very hard to keep my weight at that level.

At age 20, during my first preganancy. I first became obese,
and all through my lifetime thereafter, I yo-yo dieted.
All during the 50s, and 60s, and 70s, I stood out as one of the "fat" ones.

I've often thought "Where were all these fat people when I was young?"
Despite my knowledge of the "science" behind the obesity in our present culture,
I still haven't gotten used to the current population of young "fat" girls and women.
At that age,
although I was comparatively thinner than the majority of the present population of young girls and women,
and dressed myself in "figure flattering" clothing,
the culture around me considered me fat ... and many of them told me so.

[herbsgirl]

In the 1950's the portion size was a lot smaller?

[wosnes]

In the 1950's the portion size was a lot smaller?

Portion sizes were smaller, dinner plates were somewhat smaller and we didn't perma-snack. Until recently my mother's "good" dinner plates, purchased around 1938, were in daily use at my former mother-in-law's home. They aren't much smaller than my dinner plates: maybe 10" instead of 10 1/2".

[Grammy G]

I have been reading post this with interest, having grown up in the mid 40 through the 50's.
I just did some dinner plate measuring..my mom's dinner plates..72 years old// my wedding-present "good" china..50 years old//my daily-use china..10 years old. The plates are within a scant 1/2 inch of each other in diameter. No big difference, as has been pointed out.
Dinner at my home was very defined: example/ one pork chop per person/a starch (usually potatoes..one per person)/ a canned veggie/ a wedge of iceberg lettuce/a stack of white bread/butter/ milk for the kids, coffee for the adults/ canned fruit or something baked for dessert. No dessert if you didn't eat your dinner. (I tended to put ketchup on anything I didn't like!) We had a dinner hour beginning at 6pm and everyone was expected to be at the table at that time. The kids were in charge of setting and clearing the table and, as we got older, we helped cook and do dishes. No phone calls/no TV/no fighting at the table. We enjoyed hearing what was going on in everyone's life and making plans for the weekend. Oh yeah..we kids had our battles but not at the dinner table!
There were snacks for after school and snacks for bedtime. We did not eat and drink while watching TV or doing homework. Soda was a special treat for Saturday evening..not with a meal! One small glass bottle of Coke and a small bowl of pretzels was considered a big deal and if we were playing board games..the evening was very special! Sunday dinner was usually a beef roast and pie and ice cream for dessert. I can't remember people having seconds of meat at any meal. If you were hungry, there was always bread and butter..and some sugar or corn syrup to that and you had a after school snack..or dessert. Meals were of the"if its Monday, it's meatloaf variety.. and that was the case with most families I knew. Food just wasn't a big deal. it wasn't a reward..taking it away wasn't a punishment. Food was for energy.. and pleasure but not the "god" it has become. Ah..so there is my trip down memory lane and I think my family was a pretty middle-of-the-road Pennsylvania German heritage family..I don't think much different than most families of that time..unless they had less food or more food, depending on the money there was to spend..

[jw]

Grammy G, it sounds like you grew up in my childhood home! Right down to the Sunday evening pop and pretzels! I felt a wave of nostalgia just reading that -- thanks!

[wosnes]

i was thinking about the snacks earlier, too, especially, for some reason, popcorn. The equivalent of one bag of microwave popcorn was popped for the whole family.

The only rule I changed when I had my own family was about dessert. If dessert was being served, everyone got dessert if they wanted it. My rationale was that I wouldn't tell an adult they couldn't have dessert if they didn't clean their plate.

[Over43]

Red meat and martinis for dinner. And a pack of Lucky Strike throughout the day.

[leafy_greens]

Grammy G, thanks for your post. My childhood (1980s) had normal eating patterns, until my mom went back to work (I was about age 11.) This seems to be when our family eating together and having rules about food went out the window (and my food issues began.) I don't blame my parents because they didn't know, and they worked very hard. Being alone for hours after school didn't help when I could snack uncontrollably. I think it was just a by-product of our society not caring about meals anymore.

Averyl's blog had this interesting video. It has the negative word "propaganda" in the title, but the content seems like common sense to me! Snacks after school were graham crackers and milk.

American Propaganda Films - Good Eating Habits (1951)

I do remember going to a friend's house and her mom had a stock pile of cans of Coke. My friend said she was only allowed to have one per day. That was really the only food rule I remember encountering in my childhood.

[M's sick of dieting]

It's true, my Mom and Dad where kids in the fifties and she always says "there really were no Fat kids or Adults for that matter". But she also says aside from Cake on Birthdays there was No snacks, no video games, and she said Kids played outside all day everyday. She said once a month my Grandparents would go out to eat and buy her and her 3 brothers 1 Pop, and a bag of chips for the 4 of them to share and that was there once a month treat. She said until she got Married and had Kids her hip bones created a bridge in her pants she was so thin. But she never dieted and never thought about it.

[Rea]

Okay, minor complaint about this blog and the idea that she went on a "1950s diet" to lose weight. If you read it, you'll see that she also 1) cut out sugar for a whole year, 2) cut out all fake and processed foods (they ate a lot of processed foods in the 50s, such as margarine) and 3) went gluten free, which wasn't common at all in the 1950s, even if you had celiac disease (because everyone knows "Americans don't get celiac disease").
And then the book is only 50 pages but costs $9.95. Yes, it's under $10, but only by $0.05.
Also, if you watched "The Men Who Made Us Fat" documentary, they talked about how the Metlife Insurance thing was actually quite flawed (as flawed as BMI) and made a ton of Americans think they were fat when they weren't really. So there is no perfect way to determine if someone is really fat, except actually measuring their fat in a submersion pool, I guess.
At any rate, I read through the entire blog because I'm on vacation and I thoroughly enjoyed the retro ads. They always make me laugh
Also, it did occur to me that the whole 'fat shaming' that she mentions was a huge part of the culture in the 1950s may have been one of the reasons why people were thinner. I know in Europe fat shaming is still quite prevalent, especially for women. When my Ukrainian host sister went home, the first thing her dad said when he saw her was how fat she'd gotten. Whenever I go there, my in-laws comment on how heavy I am (I call myself American thin ) because in their culture, it's okay for men to be overweight, but not okay for women and it showed at meals were every guy at the table (except my husband) was overweight and every woman at the table was normal (except me )

[finallyfull]

Rea,

Yes, I too was very disappointed to read that her alleged 1950's diet was actually much more strict. I love the idea of trying to mimic an earlier, more successful food culture. But I think it's disingenuous to act like that's the biggest factor when she actually DOESN'T EAT SUGAR and is probably quite low-carb, considering that she is gluten free. It's not a pure test, which is probably why she got very thin in a year.

On the other hand, I still believe the premise that if we could somehow truly mimic what people ate back before we began gaining, we would look the same way. (I don't mean everyone, I mean generally speaking.)

[50sDiet]

Hi- this is Averyl, the author and blogger.

First, this is a very interesting thread! I enjoy reading about people's memories of the 1950s. And to the OP, thank you for your great review of my book.

To clear some things up:

I do not promote gluten and sugar-free as being 1950s in my book or blog; it's a personal decision. I am gluten-intolerant and addicted to refined sugar and refined carbs so I cut them out.

My current diet, consistent with the 1950s, is rich with carbs. I love potatoes, oatmeal, rice, corn and many other high carb foods, all consistent with wholesome 1950s eating. You'll find those ingredients in my "Snark-Free Cookery" recipes.

In my book I note that sugar was consumed but not to the extent it is today, and provide stats. Processed foods were minimally consumed in the 1950s even though the magazines were filled with fabulous and oftentimes funny ads that would lead you believe otherwise.

[finallyfull]

I wish I could have all of my questions (and snark) answered back so quickly! If your sugar free diet is comparable to a 1950's diet, then I apologize. I ASSumed they ate plenty of sugar, but I suppose not every cookie jar was filled and many a housewife skipped the pie in favor of cooked pears after dinner.

Okay I think you just earned me forking over the money to buy your book.

I do love your time capsule. My kitchen is also a time capsule, but that's pretty much due to lack of funds.

[50sDiet]

I wish I could have all of my questions (and snark) answered back so quickly! If your sugar free diet is comparable to a 1950's diet, then I apologize. I ASSumed they ate plenty of sugar, but I suppose not every cookie jar was filled and many a housewife skipped the pie in favor of cooked pears after dinner.

Okay I think you just earned me forking over the money to buy your book.

I do love your time capsule. My kitchen is also a time capsule, but that's pretty much due to lack of funds.

ha! It's OK. I'm actually thrilled that people are talking about the 50s diet. That was my original goal- to facilitate discussions about something forgotten but packed with wisdom.

*My* sugar-free diet is more stringent than the 1950s in that I don't eat white sugar, corn syrup, etc. I do my own baking and use small amounts of maple syrup.

To summarize my findings, the current American diet is packed with sugar because we subsist on food that is processed and laden with HF corn syrup, sugar, dextrose, and many other variations of sugar. So they DID bake cakes and have cookie jars filled in the 50s, but again, the amount consumed would still be much less than today.

My grandmother is in her 90s and she is Queen of Moderation. She has remained thin her entire life and still watches what she eats! She can have a small piece of cake and feel satisfied, or two cookies. I think that those of us who were raised on processed foods are more prone to become addicted to them than our grandmothers who were raised on home cooking.

Thank you for your kind feedback and support!

[50sDiet]

finallyfull, if you feel comfortable doing so, please PM a mailing address if you are in the US. I am working on a blog post about my vintage aprons and realize I have too many. I want to send you one for being a good sport and to coordinate with your time capsule kitchen.

[Rea]

Processed foods were minimally consumed in the 1950s even though the magazines were filled with fabulous and oftentimes funny ads that would lead you believe otherwise

But I think the 1950s had a much higher rate of processed food consumption than (say) the 1930s due to the industrialization of the food industry that happened in WW2---I could be wrong though. We definitely eat more processed foods today and sugar than in the 1950s, but I think the 1950s started the trend.

I actually ended up googling to see if anyone was trying a 1940s diet, which I thought would be interesting especially considering rationing and how limited sugar was during that period. And I found one:

http://1940sexperiment.wordpress.com/

It's based in Britain, but is pretty interesting.

[Rea]

oh and if anyone's interested, there was a series in Britain called "The Supersizers Go..." where they went through various eras of British history and how people ate and measured their health at the beginning and end of a week (I know, not very long but still interesting )

Here's a link to the 50s episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XktA-jKf ... C05AB35955

[wosnes]

This link includes a link to an article about The 1953 Kitchen and that article links to a couple more, but I don't think they're as interesting. Also, Depression Era Cooking. Not the 1950s, but certainly some economical cooking.

[Foxtrotter]

Interesting stuff. I grew up in the '60s/70s, and we only got soda for camping trips, we played a lot outside, and a nickel to buy a treat was a reward if you walked or biked to the store to pick something up for Mom.

However, let's also remember that in addition to habit, adults didn't snack because most of them smoked (one of the things I was sent to the store for was cigarettes, which I could buy with a note from Mom). Women still wore girdles, and prescription of tranquilizers for pretty much any problem a woman had was common. And all that fat shaming for women led to prescription and OTC upper abuse aka diet pills. As to fewer eating disorders, I doubt it. Fewer reported, surely, because some anorexia-related behaviors would be normalized as watching one's weight.

I think we could accomplish a lot by completely avoiding high fructose corn syrup. This weekend I tried WhoKnew cookies, an Oreo imitator with plain sugar rather than HFCS. Taste pretty much the same, but the drive to have more and more just isn't there. Our bodies may metabolize HFCS the same as sugar, but I think it must work differently in the brain, or something.

[ksbrowne]

I was a child during the 60's. My mother was quite strict about our eating habits. We almost never snacked. If we were starving, she'd let us nibble on a teaspoon of peanut butter. We never took seconds of anything. That wasn't a rule, just was a habit, somehow. After supper we could have a cookie or a little dish of ice cream. But no sodas, no candy, no potato chips at our house.

About "fat shaming" at one point I was having 4 or 5 cookies after supper each evening. I can remember Mother looking at me very sternly from across the room and saying, "Your thighs are getting a little chubby. Only 1 cookie from now on."

It annoyed me a little bit at the time, but now I'm thankful I had a mother who taught me good eating habits.

[leafy_greens]

Hi- this is Averyl, the author and blogger.

First, this is a very interesting thread! I enjoy reading about people's memories of the 1950s. And to the OP, thank you for your great review of my book.

Wow! Thanks for stopping by this thread!

However, let's also remember that in addition to habit, adults didn't snack because most of them smoked (one of the things I was sent to the store for was cigarettes, which I could buy with a note from Mom).

I read in her book that this idea about "everyone smoked" was a myth. More people smoked than now, but nowhere near "everyone."

Okay, minor complaint about this blog and the idea that she went on a "1950s diet" to lose weight. If you read it, you'll see that she also 1) cut out sugar for a whole year, 2) cut out all fake and processed foods (they ate a lot of processed foods in the 50s, such as margarine) and 3) went gluten free, which wasn't common at all in the 1950s, even if you had celiac disease (because everyone knows "Americans don't get celiac disease").
And then the book is only 50 pages but costs $9.95. Yes, it's under $10, but only by $0.05.

I don't agree with the whole blog, as some things like gluten free are too restrictive for those following Vanilla No S, without medical conditions. Of course Averyl knows what works for her. She makes a lot of good points about the health of society in general several decades ago. There is no doubt that we are fatter now than then. I appreciate that Averyl promotes a simpler life with regular foods and no frills. If it worked back then, I don't see why it can't work now. Reinhard makes the same point but Averyl takes it more in depth. Anyways, the book is $9.95 and short but I thought she came up with a good idea and don't mind spending the money to support her efforts.

[Rea]

I don't agree with the whole blog, as some things like gluten free are too restrictive for those following Vanilla No S, without medical conditions. Of course Averyl knows what works for her. She makes a lot of good points about the health of society in general several decades ago. There is no doubt that we are fatter now than then. I appreciate that Averyl promotes a simpler life with regular foods and no frills. If it worked back then, I don't see why it can't work now. Reinhard makes the same point but Averyl takes it more in depth. Anyways, the book is $9.95 and short but I thought she came up with a good idea and don't mind spending the money to support her efforts.

I guess the issue is more if you read it "I went on the 1950s diet and lost 16 lbs" or "People in the 1950s ate way more healthier than we today and btw I lost weight by cutting out sugar and gluten from my diet and eating fewer processed foods. Oh, and I love stuff from the 1950s." If you read it like the first bit, you'll be disappointed, which I guess was more my perspective because I find it really interesting when people do that sort of thing.
As for the price, it was just sticker shock because when Reinhard published the No S Diet book, its kindle price is $9.99 and it's 200 pgs, that just comes across as a lot more value for my reading dollar. 50 pages I could read in less than an hour and then I would just feel disappointed Plus, I found a few blog posts where whatever charts were in it were taken down and covered with a notice that if you wanted to read that you'd, find it in the book. Which strikes me as...odd.

Sadly, I considered a while back while looking at one of those maps showing how levels of obesity have increased in the US that compared to today, it looks like we ate so much better in 1990 because we were comparatively so much skinnier back then! Sad

[50sDiet]

I don't agree with the whole blog, as some things like gluten free are too restrictive for those following Vanilla No S, without medical conditions. Of course Averyl knows what works for her. She makes a lot of good points about the health of society in general several decades ago. There is no doubt that we are fatter now than then. I appreciate that Averyl promotes a simpler life with regular foods and no frills. If it worked back then, I don't see why it can't work now. Reinhard makes the same point but Averyl takes it more in depth. Anyways, the book is $9.95 and short but I thought she came up with a good idea and don't mind spending the money to support her efforts.

I guess the issue is more if you read it "I went on the 1950s diet and lost 16 lbs" or "People in the 1950s ate way more healthier than we today and btw I lost weight by cutting out sugar and gluten from my diet and eating fewer processed foods. Oh, and I love stuff from the 1950s." If you read it like the first bit, you'll be disappointed, which I guess was more my perspective because I find it really interesting when people do that sort of thing. As for the price, it was just sticker shock because when Reinhard published the No S Diet book, its kindle price is $9.99 and it's 200 pgs, that just comes across as a lot more value for my reading dollar. 50 pages I could read in less than an hour and then I would just feel disappointed Sad Plus, I found a few blog posts where whatever charts were in it were taken down and covered with a notice that if you wanted to read that you'd, find it in the book. Which strikes me as...odd

The 1950s diet is not a specific, prescribed diet; it's a way of eating and living. You wouldn't find the same menus in every household. I advise people in my book and blog to check with their doctor to see what works for them. I'm a refined sugar addict and have issues with gluten so I abstain from them. It would be silly and dangerous for anyone with health issues to ignore them because it wouldn't be what the average woman ate in the 1950s. And "what they ate" isn't a tally of households having meatloaf with pudding for dessert. It's about general food groups, calories, what they didn't eat because it wasn't present in the 1950s, how they thought, moved more etc. So really to zero in on the fact that I choose to not eat two specific ingredients somehow makes it not a 1950s diet isn't factual. It's also myth that going gluten-free equate weight loss; gluten-free doesn't mean low calorie by any stretch. High calorie highly processed gluten-free junk is rather popular these days.

Anyway, my book (61 pages, not 50) isn't about me other than in the intro where I introduce how I discovered it and how it helped me. The book is about 1950s stats and facts with tips on how people can add it to their own life. It worked in the 1950s so why not focus on the message?

The extensive research and time it took to write my blog and book cost me a lot of time away from work. The vintage source material I used is expensive. There are also charts that took me a very long time to research and create (not vintage scans but my own research). My blog is ad-free so I do hope to bring in a small income to recoup my expenses and time.

[biggirllosesweight]

I just wanted to say that I think that "fat shaming" is horrible and cruel.
I'm lucky and have never had to go through any of that, but my mom was born in 1950 and she was always chubby even as a little girl and people were cruel to her. Even her 1st grade teacher was mean to her and called her names.
Eating disorders DID exist in the 1950's. Lets not put on rose colored glasses when we look at the past. They weren't named or talked about, but people suffered from them and many people back then, just like today, obsessed about their weight.
I know obesity wasn't as big of an issue back then, but I would never want to be around someone that talked bad about or bullied overweight people.

[eschano]

Sorry to hear your mother was shamed - that must have been horrible!

I don't know if many of you watch Mad Men but I think Betty Draper's character goes through some eating-problems and it is very well written - she reminded me of my mum then - always on some crazy diet and smoking a pack a day.

[biggirllosesweight]

eschano, I can't help it, but it's always kind of irritated me to see those annoying super skinny saggy elderly women thinking that because they're all shriveled and skinny that they look good or are even healthy.
Like I said, I'm lucky because even though I'm technically overweight 172 pounds and 5'6, I don't really look too chubby. Anyway, I work with elderly people at a nursing home and they certainly don't mind telling you that you're fat. It must have been a different world when they were young. I'm 25 by the way. I would never want to go back to the way people were in 1950's.

[finallyfull]

I think respect for humans of all sizes would be nice, big or small, with no room for mean words.

Health is one thing, and we can talk about optimum health without encouraging people to hate themselves, whether they are overweight or "shriveled".

[eschano]

I completely agree with both of you!

If it were up to me I would immediatly ban photoshopping people thinner or more "ideal" and institute that all models need to have a minimum BMI of 20. At least that would be a start.

[biggirllosesweight]

Yeah, I just realized that I shouldn't have said shriveled because that is
not very nice and could hurt someone's feelings. I'm sorry if I did upset anyone with saying that.

[ironchef]

Thank you for taking back the above negative comment, I really like the way this board can operate so politely, even when we disagree.

I work with elderly people at a nursing home and they certainly don't mind telling you that you're fat. It must have been a different world when they were young.

My grandmother grew up well before the 1950s, but she did a fair bit of inappropriate (and loud) judging as she got older. Both fat shaming and other things. I don't believe this was the era she grew up in - in fact I think people were much more polite with their speech when she was a girl. I think her inhibitions just got lower as she got older and she blurted out things that she would otherwise have kept to herself.

[eschano]

I think this is also a good reminder of how we treat ourself. It's not acceptable to "fat-shame" or "thin-shame" or shame another person in any other way so it should also not be acceptable for us to talk to ourselves like that.

Thinking of my grandmother and mother - their "fat-shaming" was horrendous but paled in comparison with their self-talk.

So we should all start with some kindness for ourselves and then it is impossible to be unkind to someone else

[Minkymoo]

Fat shaming might have had more relevancy in those times when food scarcity was a recent memory. In the UK rationing continued for quite some time after the end of WW2, I don't know if this happened in the US. I am pretty sure that a larger proportion of people's income was spent on food in the 1950s and before. There was also less low priced / high calorie junk available.

If you made your bread from scratch and spent a greater proportion of you family budget on some meat to be shared between the family you might have justifiably been annoyed with any person who ate more than their fair share. I think this is behind the previous generation's fat shaming behaviour which I have been on the recieving end of on many an occasion!

I see this attitude having a resurgence with obese people now seen as being the cause of the difficulties our beloved UK health system now faces. It seems much more unfair nowadays though, as it is so much easier to become obese with our everyday lives being so much more sedentary, children having less freedom to play outside and high calorie food not only cheap but available everywhere.

When you think of it like this its amazing that everyone isn't obese... and that is where the most interesting research in the obesity field is coming from!

I also have worked in nursing homes and seen the elderly exert iron self discipline over desserts. A funny quote was posted on facebook earlier today about the pathos of those ladies who turned away the desert trolley the night the titanic sunk. But I guess the only reason I find this amusing is that turning away the desert trolley seems like an act of heroism to me and I can only wonder in amazement at those who truly can take or leave a sticky toffee pudding

[automatedeating]

I think it is very insightful to ponder how healthcare costs for complications of obesity may play into the current derogation some thin people exhibit toward the overweight. It is similar, in some respects, I believe, to the way that smokers are looked down upon. That has always bothered me. I don't smoke, but I don't see why whether or not someone smokes has any bearing on their integrity.

[losingforgood]

I HATE fat shaming. While it's true that the predominant reason people are fat is poor eating habit and laziness, there are so many factors that add to the problem. I was appalled when I was new working at a hospital and I was called to transport a patient from ICU to the heart center. She was a bariatric patient under sedation, so of course she couldn't stick up for herself when respiratory and nurses started making nasty comments about her size while we transferred her to the stretcher. But she got agitated and started shaking. My heart broke for her. I rubbed her arm and told her I was taking her down to the heart center and that she would be safe with me. She relaxed immediately. On the way down, those same jerks made several more comments. Each time they did, she would get agitated. Each time, I would speak softly to her and reassure her and she would relax. I didn't have the guts to speak up to the people who were saying those cruel things because I was a new employee and didn't have my spine yet. But I was too angry to let it go and I reported them. They acted like she couldn't hear, when they knew damned well that she probably could. It's so easy to judge fat people because our "sin" is out there for the whole world to see. It's hard enough overcoming this addiction without all the fat shaming, much less with it. It's way better to encourage others to adopt healthier habits and celebrate their successes and to be compassionate towards their struggle than to "shame" them.