5 December 1956 “Q & A Sunday: 1950’s Diet and Health”

This weeks question from one of my fine followers is as follows:
  I have a question about a comment you made in your Lard post.  The way you describe how your eating habits have changed since going back to 1955 is impressive.  Not to mention lowering your grocery bill by doing so.  Have you or your husband received any positive test results or positive feedback from your doctor, if you've discussed this with him/her.  I'm not trying to pry, just wondering for my own health needs.  Seems like we Americans need to get back to real life AND real food.
If you think this would make a good Sunday question/answer post I'd love to see you expand on the topic.
I thought this a good question to deal with as we approach the Holidays. We American’s are now officially over-eaters in our normal day to day life, but add the Holiday to this and look out! Therefore this seems a good time to discuss this.
When many people today consider the 1950’s and food, they often think, “Oh, Bacon and Butter; everything is dripping in butter and lard; Steak and Red meat” and so on. There are even modern commercials that play on this stereo-type. Here we are to “Meet the BUTTERTONS”

This commercial is the perfect example of modern propaganda. It is false in many ways. The first being that in 1950 entire sticks of butter were spread all over everything. First and foremost food in 1950’s was MUCH more expensive than today. Today’s food IS cheaper and more plentiful mostly attributed to corporate farming and the high percentage of imports of goods from foreign markets.
Secondly it is false in its dietary claims. To say that “I can’t believe it’s not butter” (Which I bet were I to taste it I COULD believe it was NOT butter) is better than butter is ridiculous. It is a margarine type spread. It is processed from a variety vegetable fat and is actually grey in color. It is often made from the least nutritious oils, such as cotton seed, which is also used as pesticide. The ‘butter color’ has to be added to give it the appearance of actual butter.
It is also whipped in a can which contains much air and you therefore get less than you would in a solid stick of butter. This is also true of whipped butter. Therefore,  anyone who buys whipped butter : you are paying for air. If you like whipped butter, make it yourself with your mixer and even add a little cream or milk, whip to the consistency you like and store in the ice box! You can even add herbs, garlic or make honey or cinnamon whipped for the breakfast table. But start out with a good solid stick of butter. I actually buy butter in a 1 lb block and simply cut it into the quarters you get when you buy the pre-packed pound with four 1/4 pound sticks. IT is less to throw away and cheaper to buy. But I digress…
Rather than describe the production of margarine in my own words, I found this which does a better job. Here is what we ‘smart modern families’ are eating when we eat margarine (and many other products that contain margarine in them any ‘cream based’ soups, packaged cheese/gravy sauces you name it)

How is margarine made: Step 1
Margarine makers start with cheap. poor quality vegetable oils, such as corn, cottonseed, soybeans, safflower seeds and canola.
These oils have already turned rancid from being extracted from oil seeds using high temperature and high pressure. Rancid oils are loaded with free radicals that react easily with other molecules, causing cell damage, premature aging and a host of other problems.
The last bit of oil is removed with hexane, a solvent known to cause cancer. Although this hexane subsequent removed, traces of it are inevitably left behind.
Unfit for consumption
Moreover, some of these oils are not suitable for human consumption to begin with.
Cottonseed oil, one of the most popular margarine ingredients, has natural toxins and unrefined cottonseed oil is used as a pesticide. The toxin, gossypol, is removed during refining.
Cottonseed oil also contains far too much Omega-6 fatty acids in relation to Omega 3. While both Omega 6 and Omega 3 are essential fatty acids, an imbalance between the two is widely believed to cause various health problems, including heart disease.
Most experts on the subject believe that a healthy ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 is between 1:1 and 1:2. Cotton seed oil, however, has over 50 percent omega 6 and only trace amounts of Omega 3, giving a ratio of 1: several hundred or more.
As cotton is one of the most heavily sprayed crops, there are also concerns that cottonseed oil may be highly contaminated with pesticide residues. However, insufficient testing has been done.
Canola oil, which is widely touted as the healthiest oil of all, has problems as well. Consumption of Canola has been linked with vitamin E deficiency as well as growth retardation. For this reason, Canola oil is not allowed to be used in the manufacture of infant formula.
The oils used for making margarine are also among the Big Four genetically modified crops – soy, corn, rapeseed / Canola and cotton.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 2
The raw oils for making margarine are steam cleaned. This destroys all the vitamins and antioxidants.
However, the residues of pesticides and solvents – that is, hexane – remain.
How is margarine made: Step 3
The oils are mixed with finely ground nickel, a highly toxic substance that serves as a catalyst for the chemical reaction during the hydrogenation process.
Other catalysts may be used, but these, too, are highly toxic.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 4
The oils are then put under high temperature and pressure in a reactor.
Hydrogen gas is introduced. The high temperature and pressure, together with the presence of nickel catalyst, causes hydrogen atoms to be forced into the oil molecules.
If the oil is partially hydrogenated, it turns from liquid into a semi-solid.
Trans fats are formed during partial hydrogenation. These are fat molecules that have been twisted out of shape. In liquid oils, the molecules are bent, with the hydrogen atoms on opposite sides of each other.
During partial hydrogenation, the molecules are somewhat straightened and now all the hydrogen molecules are on the same side.
If the oil is fully hydrogenated, it turns into a hard solid that cannot be eaten. It no longer contains trans fats because the "out of shape” oil molecules have all been broken up to form straight chains. But this does not mean they have become healthy again because of all the unnatural steps above.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 5
What comes out of the partial hydrogenation process is a smelly, lumpy, grey grease.
To remove the lumps, emulsifiers – which are like soaps – are mixed in.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 6
The oil is steam cleaned (again!) to remove the odor of chemicals. This step is called deodorization and it again involves high temperature and high pressure.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 7
The oil is then bleached to get rid of the grey color.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 8
Synthetic vitamins and artificial flavors are mixed in.
A natural yellow color is added to margarine, as synthetic coloring is not allowed!
In fact, early last century, all coloring was not allowed and margarine was white. This was to protect consumers so that they do not get butter and margarine mixed up.
----------------------------------------------------------​----------------------
How is margarine made: Step 9
Finally, the margarine is promoted to the public as a health food – with the full endorsement of many scientists, doctors, nutritionists and health authorities.

Another aspect of the 1950’s diet that is interesting and tied to the higher costs, is the amount they ate compared to we modern people. Food cost more, you had to prepare more from these basic foods and needed to stretch it. So, you ate less of it.
I was at our local farm yesterday at a craft/Christmas fair selling my homemade brittle (made with real butter and no high fructose corn syrup I might add!) when I noticed the sign for the home-made ice cream. They have their quarts marked down to $7 from the usual $8 in the summer. Now, one might think, “Eight dollars for a quart of ice cream! I can go to –insert big chain grocery or Wal mart here- and get it for 2 dollars” But, we must remember, this is made locally with local sourced products. This would be the case in many ways even in the 1950’s. Even as production from the war years turned to creating the home-front 1950’s luxuries, milk and cream were from smaller farms and made in this country. The cost was higher to the customer because of those factors. However, this results in a Better product which we WILL eat less of because of the cost.
It is not a coincidence that the obesity in our country coincides with the low cost bounty of cheaply made and overseas imported products we can get for pennies at Wal-mart and other Big Grocery chains.
And the idea that those in 1950’s ate red meat morning, noon, and night is also a myth. The average middle class diet contained smaller amounts of meat (smaller portions) and things such as Steak were considered a ‘special occasion’. Even the Sunday Dinner roasted chicken was a sort of culmination of the week as a special dinner. The leftovers of which would probably be seen in a meat pie or casserole on Monday’s dinner table and a soup later in the week.
Even as packaged soups and meals became available in the 1950’s they were not as prevalent or the norm as they are today and often served to aide the homemaker in meals rather than stand alone as the entire meal. If mother bought a boxed pizza or spaghetti, it might be for a fun special night for the kids when they were off for a bridge night at friends. Or when the gang was over for soda’s and a night of listening to records. Here this 1953 commercial for chef boyarde (an actual person) even mentions it helps to aid dinners and keep the cost of meals down. Hardly meant to be eaten every night.

A steak dinner would be a special occasion eat out meal, or possibly at a neighborhood or party outdoor Barbeque function. Many nightly meals for the American Middle class were stretched amounts of meat purchased by mother. These cuts of meat cost more, as did the veg, but they more than likely were grown closer to home and not shipped as far. Certainly they were not eating apples and lamb from New Zealand.
Meat consumption is much higher today:

Meat Consumption at Record High
Now more than ever, America is a Nation
of meat eaters. In 2000, total meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish)
reached 195 pounds (boneless, trimmedweight equivalent) per person, 57 pounds
above average annual consumption in
the 1950s (table 2-1). Each American
consumed an average of 7 pounds more
red meat than in the 1950s, 46 pounds
more poultry, and 4 pounds more fish
and shellfish. Rising consumer incomes,
especially with the increase in two-income households, and meat prices in the
1990s that were often at 50-year lows,
when adjusted for inflation, explain
much of the increase in meat consumption. In addition, the meat industry has
provided scores of new brand-name, value-added products processed for consumers’ convenience, as well as a host of
products for foodservice operators.

There is also this idea that we had very little nutrition back then. If I refer to my cookbooks and magazines and homemaking books of the time, as I do, I am told fresh fruit to be served with breakfast raw. I also am told raw fruit such as carrot sticks, celery, tomatoes and the like are to be provided at meal time along with the cooked vegetables. We eat more raw fruit and veg now with our 1950’s diet than we ever did with our modern, milk cereal fozen pizza diet of the 21st century. How many raw fruits and veg do you eat today with meals as a modern family? Do you have children who ‘won’t eat this or that’. Because, that almost did not exist either in the 1950’s. You were expected to ‘clean your plate’ because there were others worse off than you (particularly the staving children in the remnants of war torn Europe.)
What does this mean for us today? Well, if we could wrap our heads around not expecting impossibly low cost foods and therefore allow local farms and in-country production, we could learn to stretch what we have and make more at home. This would also mean restaurants would make more good and local and though it would cost more, we would not over-eat. Then McDonalds and other fast food chains who make 99 cent meals could keep their ill conceived food and we would eat healthier and support our own towns and country and lose weight. The higher cost does not mean more money spent on food, but actually can be less. As we learn to make more ourselves and demand less food per meal, we buy less and better. So, I have found for us, that I spend less than filling the cart with cheap on-sale packaged pizzas, fried chickens, dinners, burritos and so on. And the amount of chemicals in the food is staggering.
Now, add to this the waste and garbage. The amount of packaging from a normal modern American’s diet is immense. The 195o’s counterpart had much less garbage. I found, since 1955, that our over three bags of garbage a week has become one small bag. Much gets composted and there is just not that much packaging. When I make many things from key ingredients there aren’t boxes and boxes of cereal, pre-packaged foods, and packaging for desserts and treats.
Therefore, I think it is safe to say that many eating habits of the 1950’s can even effect our general environment with the amount of waste we create. Now, when we buy less of these things, the market for them decreases and then they will need to make different or market differently to us. It is very much a pebble dropped in a vast pond whose ripples reach far and beyond.
With concern to our health, my hubby’s and mine, we are actually better fit than when I started 1955. Particularly when you consider the current cholesterol myth. Our family physician as well as our best friend who is an ER doctor, have told us that they now have found the cholesterol levels are more associated with ones genetics and that cholesterol levels should not be lowered in many cases. Some people who currently take cholesterol lowering medication (including my Father who has now been taken off it) are actually at risk. I will not go into it now, but the drug companies are tied into the food production companies and the Food/Seed creators such as Monsanto and there is much money to be made in medicine for ‘ills’ such as ‘high cholesterol’. And any Tom, Dick or Harry could get cows, and raise them to sell butter, but if we believe butter is bad that stops that. Then add to that the FDA regulations which continually increase the high cost ‘needs’ of farming which small farmers cannot afford to keep up with. (as an example a law recently passes which resulted in our local farm having to change the way they process their greens by adding 15,000 dollar septic system in lieu of the system they had which drained the water used to clean the greens outside to an area specifically planted with a crop that was meant to use the water and grow vegetation and return nutrients to the soil. Now, instead, they have a huge cement receptacle in the ground that takes the water and keeps it there, not replenishing the soil and basically wasting the water as well as making expenses some farms can’t keep up with. These farms would then find themselves performing ‘illegal’ acts in selling greens to their community.
But, that in and of itself is more than one post. So, back to our health: My hubby, who was never overweight, had actually put some weight on before 1955. Since then he has gone down a pant size and is much leaner. He eats three meals a day prepared by me. A large breakfast of eggs, bacon, toast or pancakes, water, coffee, butter and jam. He then eats about 4 oz of meat with veg and usually cookies or a slice of homemade pie or cake for lunch with water or coffee. (We stopped drinking soda when we saw the cost as well as the soda available in the 1950’s was sweetened with sugar not high fructose corn syrup. Also the soda of 1950’s was often in a 4 or 6 oz bottle. These bottles can sometimes be had made with sugar during one of the Jewish holidays. After waiting to find them we simply found we just didn’t need or want soda. Now when we might have one occasional it might be a treat. Though, I find now, I can’t stomach the stuff. It is too fizzy for my digestion and far too sweet!)
Our portions are 1950’s portions. We eat desserts made with butter and lard, such as pie’s and cakes and biscuits and cookies, but in moderation. I have not lost as much weight as I would like I (as I have the ability to nibble being home all day while hubby cannot as he is at work) But I weigh less than when I started my 1955 project.
I also suffered from a digestive issue which my doctor could not pin down. I had been tested for IBS but was found to not have it. After the first 8 months or so of 1955, I suddenly found I was no longer suffering from my odd digestive feelings. I also used to have odd ‘attacks’ where I would feel almost an anxious panic attack and then feel rather ‘shaky’. These were similar to someone with hypoglycemia or a diabetic who is crashing from too much sugar. These have not made an appearance in over a year now. The only think I have changed is my diet.
I also now find the taste of processed foods, if I am at someone’s home say, is odd. There is a chemical taste I find when I eat a store bought cookie or chip. I also find, if I eat modern potato chips, I cannot stop eating the. The same with Cheese Crackers. Yet, when I make my own cheese crackers (which are SO good) I could never eat more than say 10 or so, as my stomach feels quite full. Mine are made with butter, un-bleached white flour, grated cheese and seasoning. The store bought has so many chemicals I wonder if some of these are set to ‘trigger’ your eating response and therefore one could eat an entire box of cheese crackers without much hesitation.
I am not a physician nor a dietician. I can only share with you what I have found for myself and my family in the past two years of a radical diet change. It seems the more one gets to the source of their food and can create or control what goes into that food, the healthier one feels and the cheaper it becomes. I now can look at eggs, flour, milk, butter, lard, sugar and various baking things as salt, baking soda, baking powder and know I can make a vast variety of things from pies, to breads, to snack foods, and a variety of meat dishes. I even make my own Tortilla’s and find them an easy to make last minute bread to have at any meal.
I really feel if we can manage to embrace modern technology in a healthy way in which it serves us and we remain its master and not the other way round and combine this with a more ‘back to nature’ approach to our food. Now, there may certainly be many 1950’s food that might not be considered healthy but we do not have to live a black or white life. We can take the meal portions, the purer diet of the time and infuse it with modern realizations about food and vitamins.
I think a real look at ‘how we used to eat’ can only benefit our modern approach to diet. If we blindly believe cheaper is better, listen to ‘what is better for us’ by the commercials made to sell corporate made products, we will only continue down our path of obesity and increased diabetes. Just the amount of ill-health we now have due to the calories we drink is staggering to what a 1950 diet would have contained. Children literally drink a day’s worth of calories in just soda alone, now add to that packaged foods such as breakfast cereals, the poor diets in public schools and the fish finger/pizza/batter fried no veg diets of their dinners and you can see we DO eat more poorly than they did in the 1950’s.
Again, looking back to look forward proves to be a good idea. I think this conversation could continue and there is much to learn in the realm of our diets with regards to the past. I don’t think ‘it was all perfect and rosy back then’. But, I also know that there is much wrong with today’s food and diet and the more passive we become, the more we become ‘plugged in’ the easier we are to be sold to. And those who sell to us simply want our money and care little for our health.
Have a wonderful Sunday and Happy Homemaking.

21 November 1956 “Q & A Sunday: Cooking With Lard”

Today’s Q & A is concerning our old friend lard. I had a recent question in a c0mment from one of you concerning this. I have also received various letters on the subject, so let’s look at that much misunderstood cooking fat: Lard.
Now, to start with, the question I received most recently was concerning a ‘meaty taste’ to a pastry while using lard. There are two possible reasons for that result. The first, and most likely the case, is the quality of the lard. Lard is made from Pig. Any part of the pig that contains fat (lard is rendered fat) can be used in lard production. However, there are ‘better’ parts of the pig for the lard which is better suited for pastry.
The second reason could simply be that maybe one should halve the fat of a pastry recipe between butter and lard, to see if they notice a difference. Perhaps the taste is so new it became more apparent to you. I, however, think it might be the quality of lard, as I have never had my lard pastry taste of ‘meat’.
Here are three levels of Lard: “The highest grade of lard, known as leaf lard, is obtained from the "flare" visceral fat deposit surrounding the kidneys and inside the loin. Leaf lard has little pork flavor, making it ideal for use in baked goods, where it is valued for its ability to produce flaky, moist pie crusts. The next highest grade of lard is obtained from fatback, the hard subcutaneous fat between the back skin and muscle of the pig. The lowest grade (for purposes of rendering into lard) is obtained from the soft caul fat surrounding digestive organs, such as small intestines, though caul fat is often used directly as a wrapping for roasting lean meats or in the manufacture of pâtés.”
Now, I would love to try various types of lard, but so far have only had experience with the simple store bought version by Armour. I am still uncertain if this is Hydrogenated. If so, it might add saturated fat. The good news for lard is that it  has Less saturated fat (the bad kind) and more unsaturated fat (the good kind) and LESS cholesterol than an equal amount of butter by weight.
Lards use in the 19th century was often due to cost. Butter was much more expensive than lard (I imagine the process by which you make butter including the smaller about derived from it as opposed to the large quantity of lard obtained from rendering a pig is vast.)
As I am uncertain about the lard I use, I found this product which will end up next on my monthly pantry list HERE.
The more research I have done, I have begun to think that I may, when not ordering the lard mentioned above, try my had at rendering my own. It seems simple enough and I am sure I can get it easily enough from a butcher I know of in Plymouth.
This tutorial on CHICKENS IN THE YARD blog is a very good step by step to lard making. Have any of you ever tried making your own?
So, I would say, if you are new to lard use 1/2 butter 1/2 lard. You will find, however, that lard is wonderful for pastry. If any are concerned of the product itself, ask yourself that while you are eating processed chips/Doritos, fast food, any pre-packaged box food in which all kinds of bad ingredients exist. Then ask yourself, ‘Can homemade things with lard, made so you know what is going into it and eaten in moderation be really bad for you?” Also consider the ‘bad press’ lard and even butter and eggs got by our ‘good friends’ the FDA when you consider who is pushing the cheaper made mass produced products of shortening and margarine and spreads.
Now, finally, I thought with Thanksgiving on its way I would show you the carving tutorial in one of my magazines. I hope it will be helpful.
Happy Homemaking.

31 October 1956 “Question & Answer Sunday”

I get this question often and in many different forms, so I thought today we could address it: (don’t mind my paraphrasing of the question)
“How should I plan my meals, marketing, and budget?”
Let’s start with the budget for our meal planning. In America’s Housekeeping Book we are told that 25-30% of our income is what should be allotted for food. It also warns against a ‘cookie-cutter’ form of lists and points out, rather smartly, that budget’s and meal planning must certainly be catered to the specific needs of the family.
Now, if we did take that percentage as a starting point and you shop weekly, as I do, then simply break down your household income into the weekly amount. So, if you earn X amount of dollars in one week, 25% of that should go to your food. If you find you spend less than that, great. I find I spend around 12-15% on my food, but I do have two other aspects to my shopping budget. Now if you shop bi-weekly, than you would figure your income that way and go forward with that calculation.
Next, with that dollar amount in mind. We could use this budget aid to now break that down.  So, if you were spending $50 dollars on your weekly food budget, say, then you would spend $10 dollars each on the five listed items. This is a good starter list, as it allows you to break your food shopping into sections. I find, however, that I usually spend a higher percentage than 1/5 of my budget on our protein:meat/fish/beans. But, you could adjust yours accordingly.
Now, many people plan their meal for the week down to the day such as MON:Roast beef, mashed potatoes, green beans and so on. For myself, I do not plant this specifically, because budget is first for me, then nutrition, then the selection. So, when I approach the market on a Friday morning, I have my list, but it is often a general list. It will include the reminder that I am shopping for 7 days (including the dinner for that Monday) On that list will first be any things that need resupplying such as flour/sugar/baking supplies. I call this my Pantry List.
There will be a separate part of my shopping list for household items such as light bulbs, toothpaste, Toilet Paper. This is called the Household List.  Incidentally, I have a separate monthly budget for non-edible shopping such as those things. I consider, if you I cannot eat it, it goes into that monthly category. The food (Including the baking supplies as I make many things from these) are included in my food budget though they are listed on the two lists Food and Pantry, if that makes sense. So, basically my shopping list is divided into those three sections on one piece of paper.
Now, for the nutrition aspect of meal planning.The Basic Seven in my earlier Betty Crocker book is much more nutrion based, I feel, than the 4 food groups in my later 50’s version of Better Homes and Gardens
  You will notice here that even on the ‘adequate’ meals Raw Vegetables are still included. I think there is a misconception today that 1950’s food was all Jell-O molds and fried and mayonnaise. I seem to find that all of my cookbooks, household manuals, and vintage magazines are filled with raw vegetables and including fruit with breakfast.
I know when I started my project I thought the same thing. Packaged food, mayonnaise covered items, and everything suspended in gelatin. The irony being, of course, that the main diets of the average person in 1950’s were much healthier than today’s average diet. We may know more about nutrition today, but most families are not following those guidelines, as prepared food now makes up the majority of what families eat, including what children get at public schools. Combine that with the higher demand on daily exercise in the 1950’s and you have, overall, a healthier way to eat. And, to me, I think it is a more approachable menu plan than what might be suggested for busy family today, who them just decide to fall back on the instant food. Therefore, if one wants to move away from pre-packaged, but the daunting tasks of modern food trends seem, well daunting, a 1950’s food cycle might be a good skeleton to build the meat of your family food and grocery budget upon.
I do not plan each day out with specific meals, as I said, as I like to buy sale items. So, if I know I need protein for 7 lunches, dinners, and breakfasts, I buy what looks good and is on sale that week. I also enjoy cooking, so not knowing my weeks meals before the store is not bad for me. Then, however, it is easy enough to plan that week’s meal after one gets home with the groceries. I can decide what veg with what meat prepared what way. I can try out new recipes, or use good ole’ standbys based on what I was able to fit into my budget.
If one does not care to cook and cares more about pre-planning, than the budget would come second and you could try to cut back on this or that once you get to the store to fill your pre-planned menu for the week.
Another helpful tool we modern shoppers have that our 1950’s counterpoints did not have, is the calculator. It was simply not there and yet today even our phones are equipped with these simple little devices. Tally your food as you put it in your cart. Keep a running tab, so you know you are staying in budget. You can also simply ‘round up’ in this matter. Chops 5.49, call it 6 as you put it in the cart, then you are sure to cover tax. It won’t be as exact but you will be more on budget than you think. I used to just fill it up and see what happened at the checkout. As if it was some game. That seems to be a sign of a very bad shopper and money manager. But, that was how I shopped. As if the total was a Christmas gift, “Oh, $150 this time, what d’ya know! Surprise!”
So, I hope these little tips are helpful. We can at least now share our own tips and ideas or more questions about shopping, meal planning and budgeting the food. Let’s hear it gals and gentleman, how do you shop and plan for those meals?
And if you would like to ask me a question to be answered on Sunday, simply Email me at www.apronrevolution.com and if you want your blog/site mentioned with a link, let me know that in the post and include it, of course, and I shall do so. Otherwise, I merely answer a question or combine similar questions into one post. Thanks.
Happy Homemaking

21 October 1956 “Cooking Pork Chops and Investing in the 1950’s”

Even though I am now going to be answering reader questions on Sundays, I thought there were two good comments on last post. So, for today’s post, I want to include them.
The first is from an Apronite who hails from Canada:

I have an off topic question, do you have an easy recipe for blade pork chops or butt pork chops.<<
I often cook them as my grandmother did in the 50`s with great results and the help of lipton onion soup mix :) They always turn out tender, but I would like another simple way to do them.......I never fry my food, and bake everything in the oven when I cook, as my mom did.

Well, first off, pork chops are very 1950’s. In fact the current president (Dwight Eisenhower) wife, Mamie was known to say, “Ike runs the country, and I turn the pork chops”.
I cook my chops both on the stove and in the oven. Usually when I bake my chops I either stuff them or at least have a stuffing of sorts over them in a covered pan to hold their moisture.
Let’s look at the pork chop. This image from my 55 Fannie Farmer cookbook shows us where the chop comes from. (click to view full size) Many people think of pork chops as being equivalent to the consistency of shoe leather. This stems largely from the fact that we were told for many years, including the 1950’s, too overcook it due to possible disease. As you can see in the diagram they say “All pork cuts require long cooking”. That is actually not true. I have a friend who recently did a ServeSafe class for her job. We now realize that pork should be tender and can be pink and doesn’t need to reach an internal temperature of any greater than 145 F. Sometimes to be safe, I might go as high as 160 F, but once you taste the sweet juicy flavor of a pink chop you will never go back.
Here is the instructions from that same Fannie Farmer book for chops:
Here are two pork chop recipes from my General Foods Cookbook.
I often cook my chops on the stove top. My way is very easy. This is easier, I think, if you use a cast iron pan, as the heat is retained. I simply season my chops on both sides with salt, pepper, (sometimes pepper corns), Coriander, and bit of sugar. Get your pan to a medium to hot heat range. Once the pan is hot, I add my fat. I often use bacon fat, which I save from my breakfasts. I suggest you use a fat that smokes at higher temps, such as bacon fat or olive oil. In the 50’s it would have been bacon fat, but today grape seed oil, peanut oil, those also don’t smoke until a higher temperature. While unrefined canola oil and sunflower and safflower smoke at around 250 F. I have a list of oils and the temperature at which they heat up on the COOKING page. If you go there, scroll down you will see it. (Simply click on it and it should enlarge. I finally found what I was doing wrong to not allow pop ups to work).
Now, pop the chops in the pan, don’t let them touch. I only give it maybe 2-5 minutes per side. You want it to look lovely and brown, then flip it and use the same amount of time and then put a lit on, turn off the heat and let it sit for 5 minutes. A cast iron pan will hold the heat and continue to cook when it is off the flame. If it is stainless steel, just turn the flame very low and cover for about 5 minutes. That is honestly as long as it can take. It is very simple and so juicy.
A meat thermometer is really good to have to test your meats. I use mine for roasts and birds all the time, but for something thin like a steak or a chop, I just use my finger. There is an old finger test to help you learn what raw to over cooked meat feels like. If you touch the fleshy bit of your hand below your thumb, with your hand relaxed, it is what raw meat feels like. Now, touch your thumb and your pinky and touch the same spot, that is Well done, and as you go through your fingers to thumb until you reach your index (that being rare feeling) you can learn to touch the doneness of food. The more ‘in there’ you are with your food the better, I have found.
I literally barely boiled water before 1955 and now find myself rather comfortable in the kitchen. The act of being a part of the food, touching and tasting and seasoning as you go, is really an integral part to being a homemaker, I feel. I often associate the kitchen with the art studio and one finds, in art as well, that the more in touch with the creation, often the better the result. This seems to be the same with food.
I have used the above baked recipes for my chops, only I really reduce the cooking time. If the chop is stuffed, it should bake a bit longer, but again, we must think of pork more like beef and less like chicken. Don’t over cook it.
Sometimes I will make a quick stuffing from leftover cornbread crumbs or bread crumbs and wrap the meat around it and toothpick it and pop it in the oven, covered and seasoned in a bit of water for about 20 minutes. I like to take the top off for the last five to crisp up the stuffing, as we like it that way.
Not sure if that helps. And please, others share your pork chop secrets with us!
The second comment I thought we could address today comes from hotpinksky35 who wrote:

One thing I've noticed about finance in the 50's is that as far as investing goes their seemed to be much more emphasis on savings bonds and life insurance in the mainstream media. Not much on mutual funds (and I know they had them back then) Maybe it was a product of the times. The rates on bonds couldn't have been high. Maybe they just had whole life insurance back then which is touted more as a financial investment than term life insurance is. Did they have term life insurance back then? With moms not working as much, maybe there was a greater perceived need for life insurance.

Is the lack of emphasis on mutual funds, stocks, currencies etc back then really a reflection of the growth of the financial services industry over the past 50 years especially with the growth of 401k plans? Personally after Enron and Goldman Sachs etc fiascos I've come to the conclusion that much of the financial services industry the mutual fund companies brokerage houses magazines Jim Cramer tv networks are all a bunch of hooey... They are selling most of the public a bill of goods and most don't take the time to learn about investing. I think you can make more money investing in stocks in the long term than you can keeping it in a savings account. But I think the financial services industry is trying to convince the public they can all become overnight millionaries by doing some $4 trades on etrade. Blah dont get me started.

I think with regards to investing we were better off in the 50s with defined pension plans savings bonds and life insurance. Most people don't know enough about investing to really grow their accounts in their 401K the way they should. I didn't until recently. I have taken the initiative to learn and my returns have improved significantly. Most people aren't going to take the time to learn the way I have.

In 1952 only  6.5 million Americans owned common stock (about 4.2% of the U.S. population). Many people were still aware of and frightened by the market crash in 1929. So, many people in the 1950’s on average, shied away from stocks.It actually took until 1954 before the Dow Jones Industrial Average exceeded the peak in 1929.
It was more complicated and expensive to invest in the 1950’s as well. One didn’t merely go onto an e-comerce/investment site and buy up some shares. This, however, had many advantaged to today’s investing. I think many of us today merely see it as another item to purchase. And, as we are a purchasing people, if you make it easy, we will come!
A very interesting item I discovered today while researching this idea, was the Glass-Steagall Act which was passed in 1933. This act made it illegal for commercial banks to collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participate in investment banking activities. In 1933, the country was in the depths of a Depression caused by the financial crisis of the stock markets. The very concept of trading and the ‘get rich quick’ mania, that many people still assume was just a part of the ‘American Dream’ was actually born out of such trading in the 1920’s. It’s result, we now see. So, the act was made.
Now, what I find very interesting and what I am always pointing out here is that we don’t seem to want to look to our past. We, as a people, have a very short term memory and it seems to get shorter all the time. We, ourselves, recently suffered a very bad financial problem owing very much to stocks and investments and brokerage and banking. And, it will be interesting for you to know that the Glass-Steagall act was dismantled in 1999! It then became possible for commercial banks and brokerage firms to intermingle and what we once considered ‘good solid banks’ really just became another leveraging money making risk institution. If you want to read more about the Glass-Seagull act go HERE.
The cost to individual to invest, then was higher. Fixed commissions were the norm, meaning what one had to pay their broker to handle the transaction between your choice, money and final stock, was rather set in stone. No competitive online pricing nor no brokerage fee deals. The technology of the day, as well, made such instant transactions non existent. Overseas investing, at this point, was almost not there. One could say, however, that the time it took and the limited information and the need of a trained professional made one less likely to part with their money.
And actually, mutual funds were not available until the very late 50’s and into the 60’s as we know them today. And certainly not something the average middle class American would even know about.  In fact what was to become Mutual Funds were only an idea in a Princeton grads thesis paper in the early 50’s. He went on to form and manage the now largest fund, Vanguard 500.

By the end of the 1960s, there were approximately 270 funds with $48 billion in assets. The first retail index fund, First Index Investment Trust, was formed in 1976 and headed by John Bogle, who conceptualized many of the key tenets of the industry in his 1951 senior thesis at Princeton University. It is now called the Vanguard 500 Index Fund and is one of the world's largest mutual funds, with more than $100 billion in assets.

So, it seems that the beginning of the 1950’s still saw very conservative attitudes toward investing. But, as the decade comes to a close we see a change. In 1954, the NYSE announced its monthly investment plan program, which allowed investors to invest as little as $40 per month.  This was really the precursor to the mutual fund concept and was used later by them. $40 dollars in today’s money would be roughly $280.00 something middle and lower middle class families may have had trouble finding. Particularly our Terre Haute family who saves a small weekly allotment.
This great little film does a good job explaining the late 1950’s new idea of investing. It will not come out until next year, 1957.(As an aside, this video and all others I will include in my posts can now also be found on my youtube channel. I have a page on the site specifically for that HERE.)

I think when you consider the ticker tape and the need to literally push paper and make calls to buy stocks, and therefore the time between your desire to own a share and your actually buying it, make stock ownership rather a turtle’s pace endeavor compared to  today’s instant digital world.
I also think we can see again how since that time we have been fed the very concept of the product. The idea of buying and we as consumers is vastly different from the 1950’s. It was beginning then, surely, but today it is easy to spend and most people have no idea what they spend even in one day, let alone a year.
Before 1955, I had little idea of money spent. I knew roughly what we hand and when to pay bills and all that. Yet, it was nothing for me to go out, almost daily, and buy here and there with my Debit card (another new invention created to make us mindless spenders). And, I cannot say how much the credit and debit card hurts the small business. I was once a business owner and the amount of fees I paid for every transaction was criminal. When you buy something from a small business and pay with debit/credit the owner has to take his profit from what is left after his/her cost of the product and then the percentage that goes to the credit/debit company. Another example of the commercial bank acting differently. And, another reason to use cash especially when supporting local business. Large concerns such as Wal-Mart and their ilk pay almost nothing and in some cases literally nothing to process these fees. So, the increased use and advertising for the convenience of them only drives another nail into small business and the middle class way of life.
And, really, that is what it comes down to with investing: convenience and ease. We are always sold on how much ‘better’ it is to have things “FAST AND NOW”. If a thing is done quicker and we get things faster that is better, we are told. Yet, what happens when we make haste? That is right, Waste. The old adage holds true. There is little time to think about what we are spending, how we should be saving, or where our money is even going when we can go online click a button and magically buy things. Hop down town with the gals, coffee, drinks, no problem plastic solves it. When really many of us have little idea what we are spending our money on. And, this in my opinion, is how the modern armchair investor works. It’s easy and ‘lower cost’ so why not do it? Yet, many people lost not only their nest egg, but in some cases as in 401K they felt safely invested for their retirement literally gone.
I heard a story of a man who was a driver for an electric company. When that company was bought out by Enron his 401K retirement plan was shifted to Enron stocks. He didn’t know as he merely paid out each week to his retirement. When Enron fell, the locked out small investors while the top few percent took millions out. This fellow had 300,000 dollars in his retirement and was close to retirement age. When they unfroze it after the crash, he was left with $1200.00! That’s not 12 thousand but 12 hundred. That is why when people say they are against caps or regulation saying it isn’t part of the free trade, they are only being lied to. It merely allows a free reign for large companies to do as they wish. And these regulations we saw fit to put in place, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, are simply wiped out and the general public has no idea. I think the 1950’s was simpler in what was going on so one had time to be more aware of what was happening in their world. Today we seem happy to forget our yesterday’s, why bother?
So, the continual lesson learned from the 1950’s: Pay attention and think before you act and plan plan plan and Be aware of  your world and  your wallet. Act with rational thought and consideration not  childish heated whims or anger. I wish we could get a 1950’s school teacher to come in and teach basic manners to many of our ‘news channels’ and the Government at large.
**As an addendum, I just want to add that from now on every post will subsequently be placed into the new site. So, today this site can be accessed again under the COOKING PAGE as well as the 1950’s PAGE. This way you can see how the site will build up with my information. And, every friday, I shall begin placing all old posts info accordingly. I am hoping this will lead to a very useful and easy to navigate site full of Vintage information. Thanks again for you patience with that.

2 October 1956 “Women’s Roles and The La Leche League”

We are often fed the stereo-type of the 1950’s woman in pearls, vacuuming or serving her husband. The modern world, for whatever reason, seems to want to relegate any woman pre-1960’s as an oppressed victim bordering on slave. I, of course, have been discovering more and more over the past two years this is far from true.
I thought I would show some women from my 1950’s magazines. These two little snippets are from a 1956 magazine. This first lady is called ‘the Frog lady’. You can read the article by simply clicking on the image.Dr. Doris M. Cochrin is a scientist. Not only is she working in the professional field she even, in the 1930’s, travelled to Brazil to continue the research started by a male scientist on frogs. There is no mention of how ‘cute it is’ that she is doing ‘man’s work’. She is shown in her office with a frog. I like to compare this with the modern image my hubby wrote about a modern young starlet (She once played Winnie on the Wonder Years) There are images of her inside as well. But, why is it that a woman who is intelligent in a ‘man’s field’ today needs to be sexualized? Why does Algebra need to be “HOT X”?
Next we have Dr. Alice Richards teached at the University of Wisconsin and is here show doing her second job: Training the Milwaukee Braves in Concentration techniques. We see a married woman who is a professional and also a key role in training a major league baseball team. Rather interesting, I think.
Now, this is not in any way to try and downgrade our modern homemakers. For, at this time, if one were a homemaker, I doubt very highly she would be looked down upon by either of these two ladies. In fact, I am sure she met many homemakers as they are both married professors who most likely have a university level social life of parties and gatherings where many homemaker wives of professors are present. This also would be a way for any young lady to see that one could have a choice.
Although the main role considered for women was the home, we must realize in most cases women did indeed have choices. Many homemakers also worked jobs. Especially among the working class, it was not uncommon to have both parents work. And those in the middle class who could afford to send their daughters to college usually did. Although many think it was for the intent of ‘finding husbands’, once there if the girls found a career as well, I don’t think they were discouraged by it. And if so, a strong woman would ignore the convention and follow her heart, I believe. Much as we, who stay home, do today.
Speaking of Homemakers and their own place of power in the world, there was an amazing even that happened this year (1956) with seven Homemaking mother’s in gathered in Chicago’s blue collar  suburb of Franklin Park, Illinois. They were to become the La Leche League (Leche being Italian for milk).
These ladies were gathering to try and gain acceptance and spread the word for something that had gone out of vogue and been discouraged by the medical community: Breast Feeding.
Doctors at that time routinely told women that they didn't have enough milk to nourish their babies, or that their milk wasn't good enough. There had been an increasing level of pressure from the medical and scientific community to take the baby from the breast and put it to the bottle on very rigid feeding schedules. There was little study done on women’s breast milk at the time and what there was had been chiefly ignored. Many doctors felt  cow's milk formula was better than what nature had provided.
These ladies ‘league’ formed one summer afternoon in 1956 at a picnic in Wilder Park in Elmhurst, Illinois, USA. During the course of the picnic, two of the ladies who were to form the league had breast feeding babies. The other mothers noticed how easy it was for  these two to care for their babies, with no bottles to warm or formula to keep cool. Eventually the other women attendees approached them with this basic story: "I had so wanted to nurse my baby but...My doctor told me I didn't have enough milk...My mother-in-law said the baby must not be getting enough because he wanted to nurse so often...My baby lost interest after I started supplementing with formula...I tried to breastfeed, but I just couldn't."
The first official meeting was held on an October evening in 1956 at Mary White's house in Franklin Park. The original group consisted of these seven ladies: Marian Tompson, Edwina Froehlich, Mary White, Betty Wagner, Mary Ann Cahill, Mary Ann Kerwin, and Viola Lennon.
Another main aspect to the decline in breast feeding ties into that same element I keep running up against in the 1950’s. The growth of the Corporation. Again, I don’t want to sound political, but I also need to represent the facts. And one of the main reasons women and also doctors were encouraged to ‘take the baby from the breast’ was the increase in Nestle’s formula production.
Though Nestle had invented baby formula as early as 1860, it wasn’t until WWII that it really took off. With the men away, many women, even those with small children, went into the workforce. Though women with younger age children could be exempt from the need to help in factories and such, the emotional and patriotic need to do so had many mothers leaving their infants with older relatives or friends. So, baby formula was a good answer to this baby left at home problem.
The baby boom generation were the first generation to be mainly bottle feed. And it was silently put around that if you were intelligent, middle class etc you bottle fed. If you say someone breast feeding it was thought they were ignorant, poor etc. Much of this perception was propegated by advertising and the subsequently corporate supported ‘studies’ in the medical field.
Now one could say, well that sounds as if you are being to critical or reading too much into it. Yet, when I see such things as this going on in Africa in the 1950’s. Nestle had created ‘Milk Nurses’ to offer free formula to South African mothers. The downside to this was they took the free nourishment (as their country was in war and great poverty) and then as the mother’s own milk dried up and they began to depend upon it, they simply stop giving it away and then had it for sale. It is one thing to make a product and sell it for money, that is fair, but to make a market through underhand ways is what I have a problem with.
And, so, in our own country, this sort of stigma to breastfeeding was put around. And during this time the middle class really was growing. Many young mothers and couples were, for the first time in their family, actually better off than their parents. They wanted to ‘belong to the middle class’ and not be seen as ‘backward’. So, the bottle and formula grew and the stigma against breastfeeding was set.
I find it very gratifying and a rather proud moment in Women’s history to know that these mother’s came together to help other mother’s take back their personal right to breast feed their children. And, in a way, their little revolution was done with sense and decorum on their part. There was no picketing and brash screaming on ‘news programs’ but rather living accornding to common sense and their example helped to spread the real knowledge and truth behind breast milk to other mothers.
I think, today however, that many mothers most likely do still bottle feed. I can’t imagine how they couldn’t since so many are working mothers. Many women get no more than a few weeks off before returning to work and if they don’t want to mess about with breast pumps, their only option is the formula.
Again and again I find that what I am most enamored with the 1950’s are the people and particularly the women. I am also finding that the current state of subterfuge and ignorance we have allowed ourselves to be in with our own food, health, economy, and government is heavily wrapped up in the corporations starting then. What may have been a growing family business happy to become larger has turned into an almost self-entity (including the fact that a corporation is now legally accepted as an individual and with an individual's rights) that seeks profit over any other aspect including human rights AND truth.
What I don’t understand is a vast majority of people today who seem to want to ‘return to an old way’ don’t realize that by simply focusing on silly topics and being lead by politicians (all of whom are puppets of the large business) are only further removing us from the ‘good ole days’. Because the main tenants of the good ole days were common sense, hard work, and decency to one another. Today we seem to think we must ‘pick a side’ draw a line in the sand and begin shouting. When really this only causes us to be further separated from one another and the common goal and a happy and good life.
But, I digress. I thought it would be good to show some strong and intelligent actual 1950’s women to contrast with the current image of the be-pearled half-idiot we seem to think the 1950’s homemaker was. I, however, am proud of that past and hope to continue to sort out the good from the bad and implement more and more of the good through learning and practice and skills.
Happy Homemaking.

1 June 1956 “June is Bustin Out All Over! The Basic Seven and More Talk on Nutrition and Food”

June IS bustin out all over and this muscial Carousel, was realeased this year, 1956. It stared Gordon MacRae and Shirley Jones. An interesting story is that Frank Sinatra was actually cast

to play the male lead and at the time they were shooting it in CinemaScope 55 (which was a larger format version of Cinema Scope introduced in 1955) which meant all the scenes had to be shot twice, one in Cinemascope and once in Cinemascope 55, so he apparently walked off the set saying, “You’re not getting two Sinatras for the price of one”. The irony being shortly after they dicsovered a way to only shoot the scene once. I guess there were even Diva’s ( or Divo as the case may be) back then. It is a great musical with many wonderful songs, such as “If I loved You”
The soundtrack to this film is wonderful. You can get it on the original vinyl (how I prefer it) HERE, or the CD HERE or even download it HERE. And if you don’t have the movie you can get it HERE, if you like. I think they are around 8 U.S. Dollars.
So, Summer is on it’s way. I hope all had a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. We had sun and steak tips and Gin and Tonics, so a usual ushering into the official Summer season here on Cape Cod.
I thought we would continue discussing more on nutrition. In the last post I mentioned the Basic Seven Foods in the early 50’s Betty Crocker cookbook. Most of you may have it, but for those of you who don’t I have scanned some relevant information here. You simply click on the image to read it. I think this a very smart, realistic and healthy grouping. I think it more detailed than the 4 food groups I grew up with. I like, for instance, that is says” 1 serving of meat poultry or fish each day. Occasionally dried beans or peas instead.” So the 50’s diet was not martini’s and fat steaks everyday with piles of potatoes and butter. It was, if the homemaker paid attention in her Home Economics courses and her cookbooks, savvy to good diets.
I think what I am continuing to find is that if one looks at what was known and suggested as good healthy eating at the time, when can actually maintain a simple, healthy diet that could be very cost effective. Today, the diet industry is big. It really took off in the 1950’s and there were some scary ‘pills’ and quick reduction plans starting, but by and large people would be skeptical of that. And that seems to be a main element we modern people have lost. We are skeptical of many things, but when things are simply fed to us through the various media channels or magazines we gobble them up like Gospel. The endless diets and diet plans, all the pills. The adverts for prescription drugs would certainly have been seen as suspicious then, why would a drug company advertise prescription drugs? In a way, we think we are more savvy today, but the people of the 50’s and earlier had a certain dose of healthy skepticism. They seemed less likely to be duped. But, as the decade progressed and we became more consumed with consuming and ease (as I said the first instant cake mixes were often not used because the wives felt guilty for the ease and when they changed the labels to read, Just add an egg, it worked). We have slowly, through the past generations, been conditioned to the expectancy of change. We expect to hear this week that eggs are bad so do this and buy this and eat this way, next week, “Oh, did you hear milk can kill drink soy milk” then “Now we see soy in abundance is bad for you, what do we do next TV, Computer, News? Lead us”
I think we all need a good dose of ole fashioned ‘Grandma’s no-nonsense skepticism. “Well, it sounds suspicious to me, eat your eggs and toast and get to work! Who needs fancy tv dinners, eat your greens and you will be okay”. (I love this picture, if this is any of my readers relative, I hope you don’t mind I used the picture, so darling.)
I mean really, if we just stop and think logically, eating basic foods in lower quantities and exercise is all we need to do. However, today that ease is complicated with a myriad of ruts and potholes in the road that the 1950’s were only beginning to see. Entertainment is forefront in our lives. We NEED no we EXPECT to be entertained ALL the time and so through these vehicles of entertainment, the bits of time we must sit and wait for the next entertaining things, we hear all the nonsense to buy this or be like that. You are fat you must be this thin take this pill drink this drink, buy this idea followed by adverts for processed fatty foods and dial up pizza. We are easily lead because of what we have become to think the normal amount of passive living.
When you look at a basic diet such as the Basic Seven, it couldn’t really be easier, nor cheaper. Just think, you could go to the market and simply just not go down many aisles. All the frozen prepared foods (though frozen veg is an okay option when it is just the veg frozen and not all the additives or cream sauces and French fries/chips are not a replacement for a green or yellow vegetable) the processed kids cereals, the cookies aisles all that. I find now how simple it is to buy key ingredients (flour, milk, egg, butter, cream, sugar, meat, veg, fruit, grain-rice, oatmeal, etc) all the things we need and even which shall taste good and give good variety of plate and palette are at our fingertips. You want some fun exciting cracker with dill and cumin, then whip up a batch of basic cracker dough, add it in and bake, in 10 minutes you will have them and you can store the rest. You want a delicious decadent chocolate dessert, okay, make it from scratch and have a 50’s serving, not the 1/4 of a cake you get in cafe’s and restaurants today. And with all that make sure you are eating your veg and fruit.
Okay, so if you refer to this chart (which if you have the old version of Betty Crockers picture cookbook-which they have also reprinted and is available anywhere, really, then you can turn to the Meal-Planning’ section to find this.    You can buy it in the store HERE as little as 6 dollars, or go to your local book store and support them. This is a good basic 50’s book, though and easily laid out in a binder form. I feel like a teacher, “Refer to your chart on page 33 of your Betty Crocker text”. Anyway, simply click here to enlarge it. You can see they say, “The basic Seven is Easy if you follow this pattern”. It even gives the suggestion for ‘adequate’ meals, so even you haven’t enough of one thing one day, you can think at least you are doing the basics. It is also very interesting to point on that for Dinner on the Complete List, it includes green or yellow vegetables AND salad with raw vegetables. Even at this point they were aware of the import of vegetables in the raw as part of a balanced diet. And one might think, “Oh, that looks like a lot with the bread and butter and piece of pie or cake for dessert”. Well, if you eat half a pizza you are eating as much if not more than a 1950’s version of this dinner. You would have a 1950’s bowl of soup, not the giant mixing bowl sizes we have today. Your meat would be between 2-3 oz serving. And a slice of good whole grain bread with some butter is much more healthy for you than the processed and chemical-ized action in a store bought or take away pizza or Chinese food. It also points out that the dinner is good after a ‘full day’ which means you have been active.
When I think how someone might get upset by the idea of the carb (bread and butter) with dinner, it is silly when you think of merely drinking a starbucks drink at your break is probably like five slices of bread and butter. And, butter, if you buy properly, is a very natural product. IT is simply the by-product of milk production, so if you could find a source where they use milk that is not from hormone injected cows and if you make or buy a good whole grain bread that is not full of preservatives, you are not that far removed from your foods beginnings. That is what I have been coming to realize: The closer you get to your foods source, the healthier it seems and easier to prepare. Butter is just made from the separation of the milk and cream, very pure. Bread is simply grains and liquid baked into nutrition. Now think about any packaged food, all the chemicals, the way it has to be made, any meat in it was probably made form a slurry of various animal parts (all the animal, whole chickens head, feet) you just don’t know what you are eating. Yet, in the 50’s, if you were not eating a Swanson Tv dinner every night, you were just naturally eating food closer to its pure source. A cut of meat for protein, veg cooked and raw, even desserts were homemade from butter, flour, eggs, pure ingredients meeting and combining to make a good tasty form of calories and vitamins.
I think the more we take control over the aspects of our lives that we can control, the better we can live and enjoy our time. Then, when we are enjoying our Entertainment, it will feel well earned and we may even find ourselves entertained with our own actions in the kitchen and home. I know I have and I laugh when I think of how much passive tv/computer time I used to use and wonder at all the time I lost that could have been spent simply DOING. I mean we can really do almost anything to entertain ourselves that can also enrich our minds and increase our skill sets. Why just watch tv when you could build that dollhouse, sew those dresses, make a garden, go to the library and study African tribal pottery. The world is out there with so much information and fun and yet we let so much of our lives simply pass by in front of our eyes as we passively sit there. Our food, in a way, is an example of this. Why bother to learn to cook or control your food by choosing your food yourself, just buy some stuff in boxes with pictures of the meal on it, nuke it and shove it down your gullet while you watch your ‘stories’ for the 15th time. Hey, it is your life, but really, I know, it’s so much MORE fun and rewarding to just be more active in it.
So, be more ACTIVE in your life and your food. Think about what you are putting in your mouth and your mind. Use your hands and your brains to make and do and NOT just click the TIVO button or press enter on the computer. You will find yourself so much more fulfilled and less dissatisfied. When you remove that element of covetousness often found through the media, “Oh, I wish I looked like her, or had that beautiful house, or lovely yard, or that yacht, car, hot movie star boyfriend, lifestyle etc etc” Who cares! There is so much YOU already have around you that is wonderful and can be improved upon and increased with your own access to knowledge, information, and skill. So our ACTION still exists here on the blog. It is becoming more and more important to me than ever.
Until next time, happy homemaking, cooking and just take 20 minutes of your tv/computer time and try something new: learn one easy pure dish to make, read up on that subject you like, paint a picture, plant some seeds, do anything that YOU control.
I will leave you with two cute 50’s ideas/kitchens for a simple eat-in bar for those early morning meals before school/work.

27 May 1956 “1950’s Nutrition and Recipes”

I thought we should continue our discussions of food, proportion, portion servings and nutrition both vintage and modern.

I really feel I have struck upon something worth delving into more deeply and have already begun ear-marking and notating pages and compiling some information. To cook vintage can be fun and have a certain compelling nature that might help lead us down the path to ease, health, weight loss, and returning to the basic connection with our food. It is not all Ambrosia salad and Bacon covered butter.
This is the insert from my Better Homes and Gardens Cookbook is the Daily Dietary Allowances.(You can click on image to see full size ) It lays out child’s age and caloric intake. So, a homemaker at the time would see and be aware of diet on levels we are not. Also, most girls and some boys were required to take Home Ec and it would have involved detailed information of diet and even such things as how to determine good fabric to make clothing etc. A skill set to help one be independent. Today we are schooled as if we are all independently wealthy and have no need to worry about it, because we can just buy it or someone else will do it for us. Unfortunately for most of us that ‘other person’ is often the corporate world making things fatter and more chemicals so you want more and therefore  buy more.
It’s interesting to note that for a woman 64 inches tall and 128 lbs at 25 should be eating 2300 calories. That might seem a lot, but when you see how it is divided and also figure an increased routine of running about and no ‘sitting at the computer or tv’ time. A homemaker in 1955 maybe watched some television. There was perhaps the ‘bad’ housewife who would watch her ‘soap opera’s (so called because of the soap advertising) but for the most part, tv was an event shared by family in the evening except the new generation of children who were growing up with it watched much more than their parents or older siblings.
The 2006 figure increased by an average one hour per person per week compared to the previous year. People in the North East watched the most television last year at an average 4.2 hours per day. But, I digress, back to nutrition.
In this same book it goes into great detail breaking down all the foods and their caloric equivalents. Under Main Dishes and Meats such things as:

Calories     Meat
95                Bacon, two strips
140             Beef Pot roast (2 thin slices 4 x 2 inches)
245             1 patty (about 4 patties per pound raw meat)

You can see that some of these ‘bad things’ are actually not high in calorie, no sugars and the fat content is minimal when one eats a realistic portion. For example, 4 hamburgers from one pound of ground meat is a much smaller portion than you would find or be instructed to make today. Before 1955, when I did make my own patties (usually bought them pre patties-how lazy is that!) one pound would be more like 2 patties so already that is two servings per one person.
Under BREADS in this same section they have one baking powder biscuit as 130 calories. Now the recipe in this book for biscuits (which I have used and do like) is as follows
Baking-Powder Biscuits

2 cups flour
3 ts[ baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1/4 shortening (I use butter-shortening was one of those war time foods that became cheap and easy to make and therefore was part of the ‘easy’ way we were beginning to see such changes. Butter is MUCH better for you)
2/3 to 3/4 cup milk
Makes 16 biscuits. (If I use my vintage biscuit cutter that is true, but if I made a ‘modern sized’ biscuit it would probably make 6-8 again portion sizes!)

Here we see some examples of Daily food plans (click to view full size). It goes on to discuss deep yellow veg compared to dark green and you are aware of the need for the various varieties for health and vitamins.
Now, many of us like the nostalgia of the 50’s. And to some of us that might be the kitsch of the odd foods. Well, here are some sample recipes from my 1954 Better Homes and Gardens in a pull out ad (they are cut-able index card sized recipes to put in your recipe box) for Miracle Whip. Now, these recipes are not bad and yet are very ‘50’s fun’. Another way to make them even healthier (besides simply eating the smaller portions you would have) is simply making your own mayonnaise. It is not hard and once you taste it you will not want to go back. Again, before the 50’s homemakers would have made their own mayonnaise. It would not have been used as prevalently as it was to be in the 1950’s but that was because it was now a product they wanted you to buy so the more offers and free recipes they gave, the more you would buy and use it. Nothing wrong with that, but you also have the power to take the fun 50’s food and make it healthier with that easy choice of home-made mayonnaise.
There are endless mayonnaise recipes out there. Simply look them up, even Youtube videos on ‘how-to's’ and with that any variation you like. Use olive oil, use different types of mustard etc. You decide, but that is one of the wonderful things about getting  more involved with your food YOU get to choose. It isn’t or shouldn’t be scary or upsetting to have choice and control over one’s life.
This is the recipe I use. It is from my Fannie Farmer Boston School cookbook from 1951 that actually belonged to a family member. I use this book often because it does show that indeed we ate ‘gourmet’ in the 1950’s.
I have made both the whole egg and the traditional egg yolk only. I usually always have a need for egg whites (white cake etc.) so make the traditional.
Now, for some of those very 50’s recipes. (click to enlarge)
Now, these would really dress up any vintage table. If you wanted authenticity and again use your own mayonnaise, and small portions and follow the guidelines for the amount of various fruit and veg and protein and milk per day. I think it would be fun to even do ‘more gourmet’ versions of this, for example, the Cantonese Tuna could use real tuna steaks from your fishmonger, Use real onions and caramelize them and maybe instead of just sweet pickles, a nice hot pepper jam or chutney and either make homemade egg noodles, adding some fun spice, and bake them to add for crunch or use strips of colored dried tortillas as the crunch. Have fun, mix it up, but don’t think it is all bad mayonnaise and bacon.
I think as I continue to research this book idea, I might even like the thought of their being a traditional or fun kitschy dish such as these that would also have a more modern ‘gourmet’ version as well, and including the caloric amounts and how it fits into the various 50’s food schemes (the five food groups as the video, the four as the Better Homes or the Basic Seven as is covered in the Betty Crocker Book).
I think we can discuss this more next post and get into the Betty Crocker 7 version.
I found this study done in the U.K. in the 1990’s that showed that the diets of children in the 1950’s was actually much better than 90’s (and I am sure it is much worse now than the 1990s).
The article in its entirety can be found HERE. But, here are some of the stats:
The project looked at the diet records of 4,600 children aged four in 1950, and compared them with similar records taken in 1992.
The researchers discovered that 1950s children:

• Ate more bread and milk, increasing their fiber and calcium intake
• Drank few soft drinks, deriving less of their energy from sugar
• Got most of their vitamin C from vegetables rather than juices and drinks
• Ate more red meat, giving them more iron
• Had more fat in their diet

In fact, the 1950s diet was almost in line with current recommendations on healthy eating for children.
Professor Michael Wadsworth, Director of the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development, said that, although the fat and overall calorie intake of the 1950s child was higher, generally children were more active than their 1990s counterparts.
It is only in recent years that the problem of childhood obesity has emerged as a major public health threat.
And I am certain it is higher today, but here are the 1990 numbers:
Estimates in 1990 suggested that one in 20 children aged nine to 11 could be classified as clinically obese.
However, a string of recent smaller studies is suggesting the true rate could now be well in excess of this.
This is a new finding for today:
• Nearly 30 percent of an average American child's calories are consumed during snacks between meals, largely due to eating high-calorie junk food, says a new study reported by CBS News today.
Without the structure of home life, with meals at certain times, schedules being lessened so that there is definite family time, meals AT table, no unsupervised in between meal snacking how can any of us, even those without children, hope to get to the grips of our food our diet where our food comes from and really our role as human to food. I think much as learning to clean and sew and organize, learning to cook and understand your food is just another element in the move towards the new ‘Responsibility’ that needs to happen among modern people. And I really do feel that using much of the 1950’s as a model is helpful because they are the closest to us in the past that were truly living a modern life we can understand and in their basic beginnings we can learn to emulate and adjust to have more control over our own use of technology and foods and money and quality time. This time travel trip still continues to open more doors and show me more of the reality of our world. For the most part, I feel, though sometimes disgusted or shocked or feeling helpless, that we are still on the threshold enough to take hold and say, “Stop, we need to try to control our future more”. I hope you are all willing to come along for that ride.
Well, until next time, Happy Homemaking and hopefully, Happy Cooking!