<http://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/newsroom-content/2014/09/foodindustryleadersfindingwaystohelpsolvenationsob esityepidemic.html>

"Sixteen major food and beverage companies acting together as part of
the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF) sold 6.4 trillion fewer
calories in the United States in 2012 than they did in 2007, according to
a study published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine."

[...]

"To evaluate the HWCF's calorie-reduction pledge, researchers determined
which individual products were included as part of the pledge and tracked
sales of those products over time. To calculate the number of calories
purchased by families with children, researchers attributed individual
products to the HWCF companies; food and beverage companies that were
not part of the HWCF; or private label, store brand, or generic products
that retailers control; and tracked purchases of those products over
time. All data used were publicly or commercially available."

and the 16 companies a

Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Campbell Soup Company
ConAgra Foods (includes Ralston Foods)
General Mills, Inc.
Hillshire Brands (previously Sara Lee Corporation)
Kellogg Company
Kraft Foods Group/Mondelez
Mars, Incorporated
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Nestlé USA
PepsiCo, Inc.
Post Foods
The Coca-Cola Company
The Hershey Company
The J.M. Smucker Company
Unilever


I don't know about you but I smell something fishy. I'm not the only
one (from a comment in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine):

"In 2010, a total of 16 major multinational food manufacturers pledged,
as part of the corporate-based Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation
(HWCF), to reduce their annual U.S. food and beverage calories sold by
1.5 trillion by 2015. Several aspects of the pledge were unusual. First,
the pledge was calculated not based on only future sales after 2010,
but also on a retrospective comparison to 2008. Second, the target was
simply total calories, without consideration of ingredients, processing,
obesogenicity, or other health effects of the products sold. Third,
the true motivation was doubted, as this target could be difficult to
achieve without reductions in product sales, and why would for-profit,
highly competitive corporate giants such as General Mills, Kellogg,
Unilever, Kraft, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola actively aim to reduce
sales? Nonetheless, the HWCF pledge was announced with fanfare and
supported by key advocacy groups including Partnership for a Healthier
America and the First Lady's Let's Move! campaign."

[...]

"This first report provided a useful overview of crude calorie sales
across these categories in 2007-2012. However, it did not evaluate
pre-pledge trends or expected changes in calorie sales absent of the
HWCF pledge. Furthermore, it did not account for the U.S. Great Recession
(2007-2009) or changes in U.S. sociodemographics or global food prices,
which could each influence sales across these product lines. "

[...]

"These findings provide objective evidence that pre-pledge trends and
other secular changes fully explain the observed calorie reduction
in HWCF brand sales between 2008 and 2012. Given that declines from
HWCF brands were less than expected, and from non-HWCF brands and PLs,
greater than expected, these results suggest that HWCF companies might
even have been actively working to minimize their losses in market share
and offset the existing secular trends."

There's more good stuff here but I'll stop now before the FBI comes for
me.

Why the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation tries so hard to cover for these
companies escapes me, other than I suppose RWJF holds a lot of their
stock in its portfolio.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

> <http://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/newsroom-content/2014/09/foodindustryleadersfindingwaystohelpsolvenationsob esityepidemic.html>
>
> "Sixteen major food and beverage companies acting together as part of
> the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF) sold 6.4 trillion fewer
> calories in the United States in 2012 than they did in 2007, according to
> a study published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine."
>
> [...]
>
> "To evaluate the HWCF's calorie-reduction pledge, researchers determined
> which individual products were included as part of the pledge and tracked
> sales of those products over time. To calculate the number of calories
> purchased by families with children, researchers attributed individual
> products to the HWCF companies; food and beverage companies that were
> not part of the HWCF; or private label, store brand, or generic products
> that retailers control; and tracked purchases of those products over
> time. All data used were publicly or commercially available."
>
> and the 16 companies a
>
> Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
> Campbell Soup Company
> ConAgra Foods (includes Ralston Foods)
> General Mills, Inc.
> Hillshire Brands (previously Sara Lee Corporation)
> Kellogg Company
> Kraft Foods Group/Mondelez
> Mars, Incorporated
> McCormick & Company, Inc.
> Nestlé USA
> PepsiCo, Inc.
> Post Foods
> The Coca-Cola Company
> The Hershey Company
> The J.M. Smucker Company
> Unilever
>
>
> I don't know about you but I smell something fishy. I'm not the only
> one (from a comment in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine):
>
> "In 2010, a total of 16 major multinational food manufacturers pledged,
> as part of the corporate-based Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation
> (HWCF), to reduce their annual U.S. food and beverage calories sold by
> 1.5 trillion by 2015. Several aspects of the pledge were unusual. First,
> the pledge was calculated not based on only future sales after 2010,
> but also on a retrospective comparison to 2008. Second, the target was
> simply total calories, without consideration of ingredients, processing,
> obesogenicity, or other health effects of the products sold. Third,
> the true motivation was doubted, as this target could be difficult to
> achieve without reductions in product sales, and why would for-profit,
> highly competitive corporate giants such as General Mills, Kellogg,
> Unilever, Kraft, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola actively aim to reduce
> sales? Nonetheless, the HWCF pledge was announced with fanfare and
> supported by key advocacy groups including Partnership for a Healthier
> America and the First Lady's Let's Move! campaign."
>
> [...]
>
> "This first report provided a useful overview of crude calorie sales
> across these categories in 2007-2012. However, it did not evaluate
> pre-pledge trends or expected changes in calorie sales absent of the
> HWCF pledge. Furthermore, it did not account for the U.S. Great Recession
> (2007-2009) or changes in U.S. sociodemographics or global food prices,
> which could each influence sales across these product lines. "
>
> [...]
<snip>
>
> There's more good stuff here but I'll stop now before the FBI comes for
> me.
>
> Why the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation tries so hard to cover for these
> companies escapes me, other than I suppose RWJF holds a lot of their
> stock in its portfolio.

They're talking the talk. Nestle, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola have lines
of water, therefore I suspect all must sell some form of low calorie
to calorie free product so they can claim they are selling fewer
calories over all.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:09:19 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
> wrote:

> <http://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/newsroom-content/2014/09/foodindustryleadersfindingwaystohelpsolvenationsob esityepidemic.html>
>
> "Sixteen major food and beverage companies acting together as part of
> the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF) sold 6.4 trillion fewer
> calories in the United States in 2012 than they did in 2007, according to
> a study published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine."
>
> [...]
>
> "To evaluate the HWCF's calorie-reduction pledge, researchers determined
> which individual products were included as part of the pledge and tracked
> sales of those products over time. To calculate the number of calories
> purchased by families with children, researchers attributed individual
> products to the HWCF companies; food and beverage companies that were
> not part of the HWCF; or private label, store brand, or generic products
> that retailers control; and tracked purchases of those products over
> time. All data used were publicly or commercially available."
>
> and the 16 companies a
>
> Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
> Campbell Soup Company
> ConAgra Foods (includes Ralston Foods)
> General Mills, Inc.
> Hillshire Brands (previously Sara Lee Corporation)
> Kellogg Company
> Kraft Foods Group/Mondelez
> Mars, Incorporated
> McCormick & Company, Inc.
> Nestlé USA
> PepsiCo, Inc.
> Post Foods
> The Coca-Cola Company
> The Hershey Company
> The J.M. Smucker Company
> Unilever
>
>
> I don't know about you but I smell something fishy. I'm not the only
> one (from a comment in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine):
>
> "In 2010, a total of 16 major multinational food manufacturers pledged,
> as part of the corporate-based Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation
> (HWCF), to reduce their annual U.S. food and beverage calories sold by
> 1.5 trillion by 2015. Several aspects of the pledge were unusual. First,
> the pledge was calculated not based on only future sales after 2010,
> but also on a retrospective comparison to 2008. Second, the target was
> simply total calories, without consideration of ingredients, processing,
> obesogenicity, or other health effects of the products sold. Third,
> the true motivation was doubted, as this target could be difficult to
> achieve without reductions in product sales, and why would for-profit,
> highly competitive corporate giants such as General Mills, Kellogg,
> Unilever, Kraft, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola actively aim to reduce
> sales? Nonetheless, the HWCF pledge was announced with fanfare and
> supported by key advocacy groups including Partnership for a Healthier
> America and the First Lady's Let's Move! campaign."
>
> [...]
>
> "This first report provided a useful overview of crude calorie sales
> across these categories in 2007-2012. However, it did not evaluate
> pre-pledge trends or expected changes in calorie sales absent of the
> HWCF pledge. Furthermore, it did not account for the U.S. Great Recession
> (2007-2009) or changes in U.S. sociodemographics or global food prices,
> which could each influence sales across these product lines. "
>
> [...]
<snip>
>
> There's more good stuff here but I'll stop now before the FBI comes for
> me.
>
> Why the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation tries so hard to cover for these
> companies escapes me, other than I suppose RWJF holds a lot of their
> stock in its portfolio.

They're talking the talk. Nestle, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola have lines
of water, therefore I suspect all must sell some form of low calorie
to calorie free product so they can claim they are selling fewer
calories over all.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:35:50 -0500, barbie gee >
wrote:

> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>
> Smoke and mirrors.
> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?

Ditto. Smaller serving sizes = fewer calories and less they need to
report of other things too because .5 and below gets a pass. I'm
still sticking with the idea that they are marketing more water and
other low calorie/calorie free beverages too.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

barbie gee wrote:

> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>
> Smoke and mirrors.
> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?

I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too

On 9/23/2014 12:58 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
> barbie gee wrote:
>
>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>
>> Smoke and mirrors.
>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>
> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too
>

I remember when they were 5 cents.
Adjusting for inflation, that is about 50 cents now.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/23/2014 12:58 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> barbie gee wrote:
>>
>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish
>>> this,
>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>>
>>> Smoke and mirrors.
>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>>
>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too
>>
>
> I remember when they were 5 cents.
> Adjusting for inflation, that is about 50 cents now.

When I was a kid, I could get some for a nickel. That was one reason why I
bought those chocolate covered fudge bars. They were a nickel. Plus I
really liked them. Turkish Taffy was a nickel too as was the long sticks of
bubble gum. Hershey Bars and the likes of those were a dime.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 00:23:05 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/23/2014 12:58 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
>> barbie gee wrote:
>>
>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>>
>>> Smoke and mirrors.
>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>>
>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too
>>
>
>I remember when they were 5 cents.
>Adjusting for inflation, that is about 50 cents now.

And six for a quarter. Three Musketeer bars were marked in three
sections, each the size of today's bar.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:58:41 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> barbie gee wrote:
>>
>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>>
>>> Smoke and mirrors.
>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>>
>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too
>
> Most major "standard size" candy bars are bigger than they were in the
> 50's and 60's. Even through most of the 80's. After the 80's they
> started to shrink again, but they are still generally bigger than
> their 60's and 70's counterparts.
>
> -sw

no, they were definitely bigger then

relatively speaking

On 9/24/2014 4:36 PM, Becca EmaNymton wrote:
> I prefer salty snacks, but I ate my share of candy bars. My favorites
> changed over the years, but I always liked Snickers.
>
> Becca

Ditto salty snacks, but my absolute fav candy bar was Zagnut.

Jill

On 2014-09-24 5:32 PM, tert in seattle wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:58:41 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>> barbie gee wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
>>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>>>
>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
>>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
>>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>>>
>>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too
>>
>> Most major "standard size" candy bars are bigger than they were in the
>> 50's and 60's. Even through most of the 80's. After the 80's they
>> started to shrink again, but they are still generally bigger than
>> their 60's and 70's counterparts.
>>
>> -sw
>
> no, they were definitely bigger then
>
> relatively speaking
>

I might be the old fart in the crowd, but I remember back in the 50s we
had 5 cent and ten cent chocolate bars. A small number of them, mostly
plain chocolate or with nuts and/or raisins also came in a 24 cent size,
which were huge. The old 5 cent size is long gone, and many of the bars
that are now commonly available seem to be about the old 10 cent size,
but a lot more expensive.

I rarely by small chocolate bars, but about once a month I buy a large
bar of dark chocolate and I have a square or two once in a while and a
bar lasts a month or two.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
>I might be the old fart in the crowd, but I remember back in the 50s we
>had 5 cent and ten cent chocolate bars.

One of my favorites was a Clark Bar. Also no longer as good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Bar
http://www.candyblog.net/blog/item/clark_bar/

On 9/24/2014 6:59 PM, sf wrote:

> Mounds is Almond Joy without the nuts.
>

With dark chocolate instead of milk. One of my favorites.

On 9/24/2014 6:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> I never did understand the success of Hershey's. We could not get them
> here when I was a kid but they were commonly referred to in American
> movies and television. Apparently American GIs in occupied Europe could
> get any women they wanted for a couple Hershey bars. They were better
> than gin. When I finally got to try a Hershey bar it was a major
> disappointment.
>
>

Hershey had the biggest market share. Growing up it was readily
available at every candy/grocery/drug store so it is what we ate.
Acceptable, but not the best but I didn't know that quality chocolates
existed back then.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:23:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 9/24/2014 6:59 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > Mounds is Almond Joy without the nuts.
> >
>
> With dark chocolate instead of milk. One of my favorites.
>

Didn't know there was a choice.

Never particularly liked milk chocolate, but now I can't stand
anything with it these days. Blech.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:33:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 9/24/2014 6:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I never did understand the success of Hershey's. We could not get them
> > here when I was a kid but they were commonly referred to in American
> > movies and television. Apparently American GIs in occupied Europe could
> > get any women they wanted for a couple Hershey bars. They were better
> > than gin. When I finally got to try a Hershey bar it was a major
> > disappointment.
> >
> >
>
> Hershey had the biggest market share. Growing up it was readily
> available at every candy/grocery/drug store so it is what we ate.
> Acceptable, but not the best but I didn't know that quality chocolates
> existed back then.

I would venture to guess that mass market chocolate was a higher
quality and the mass market didn't know zip about better quality
chocolate anyway.

Hubby and I used to love those bags of mini Hershey's chocolates that
came out for Halloween. He would grab all the Special Dark and I took
the Crunch. Trick r Treaters got what was left. Haven't seen those
bags in years... but after the last Crunch bar I bought (which was
cheapened beyond belief), I'll stick with special dark.... unless that
one has gone under too.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:32:13 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:58:41 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>
>>>> barbie gee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish this,
>>>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>>>>
>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
>>>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember when
>>>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>>>>
>>>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then too
>>>
>>> Most major "standard size" candy bars are bigger than they were in the
>>> 50's and 60's. Even through most of the 80's. After the 80's they
>>> started to shrink again, but they are still generally bigger than
>>> their 60's and 70's counterparts.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> no, they were definitely bigger then
>
> Then when? They were most certainly not bigger in the 60's and 70's.
> I suppose you also think sodas sizes have shrunk, too?
>
> -sw

you are a very clever, humorless boy

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:32:13 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:58:41 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> barbie gee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish
>>>>>> this,
>>>>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then
>>>>> too
>>>>
>>>> Most major "standard size" candy bars are bigger than they were in the
>>>> 50's and 60's. Even through most of the 80's. After the 80's they
>>>> started to shrink again, but they are still generally bigger than
>>>> their 60's and 70's counterparts.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>
>>> no, they were definitely bigger then
>>
>> Then when? They were most certainly not bigger in the 60's and 70's.
>> I suppose you also think sodas sizes have shrunk, too?
>>
>> -sw
>
> you are a very clever, humorless boy

I'll tell you what shrank! My pants! That's what!

My fave was a Waleeco.

"The coconut is tender,
the chocolate bitter-sweet,
so reach for Waleeco,
the tasty five cent treat."
If any of you understand solfege, I can give ya the tune, too.

I can still sing the Lustercreme jingle too, and of course, the Brylcream ( am I spelling that right?)

In article >, says...
>
> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:32:13 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:58:41 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> barbie gee wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll bet they used the Amazing Supermarket Shrink Ray to accomplish
> >>>>>> this,
> >>>>>> all the while charging the same price, and selling less "calories".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Smoke and mirrors.
> >>>>>> I'm finding boxes of pasta that are not 16 oz anymore, and remember
> >>>>>> when
> >>>>>> yogurts came in a full 8oz cup?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I remember when candy bars were a quarter, and they were bigger then
> >>>>> too
> >>>>
> >>>> Most major "standard size" candy bars are bigger than they were in the
> >>>> 50's and 60's. Even through most of the 80's. After the 80's they
> >>>> started to shrink again, but they are still generally bigger than
> >>>> their 60's and 70's counterparts.
> >>>>
> >>>> -sw
> >>>
> >>> no, they were definitely bigger then
> >>
> >> Then when? They were most certainly not bigger in the 60's and 70's.
> >> I suppose you also think sodas sizes have shrunk, too?
> >>
> >> -sw
> >
> > you are a very clever, humorless boy
>
> I'll tell you what shrank! My pants! That's what!

But not your arse

Janet UK

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:36:18 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> I'll tell you what shrank! My pants! That's what!

Dress sizes have increased, What used to be considered a size 10 is
more like a size 2 these days.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:17:40 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

> My fave was a Waleeco.
>
> "The coconut is tender,
> the chocolate bitter-sweet,
> so reach for Waleeco,
> the tasty five cent treat."
> If any of you understand solfege, I can give ya the tune, too.
>
> I can still sing the Lustercreme jingle too, and of course, the Brylcream ( am I spelling that right?)

The only jingle I still remember is the one for Ipana toothpaste.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:32:59 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:36:18 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I'll tell you what shrank! My pants! That's what!
>
>
>
> Dress sizes have increased, What used to be considered a size 10 is
>
> more like a size 2 these days.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Never trust a dog to watch your food.

I don't think there were any sizes like 1X, 2X 3X in those days. I can remember dresses usually were made up to size 18, MAYbe a 20. After that, you had to order a tent.

If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian women.

On Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:50:16 AM UTC-7, Kalmia wrote:
> On Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:32:59 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:36:18 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>

> > > wrote:
>

>
> > > I'll tell you what shrank! My pants! That's what!
>
> >
> > Dress sizes have increased, What used to be considered a size 10 is
> > more like a size 2 these days.
>

Yes, "vanity sizing" rules the day. My wife discovered years ago that,
the more expensive the garment, the smaller the size she takes.

But back in the 50s, the then National Bureau of Standards helped the
relatively new Ready-to-Wear industry standardize women's clothing sizes,
based on measuring a bunch of real live women:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040409...drawnstds.htm#
>
>
> I don't think there were any sizes like 1X, 2X 3X in those days. I can remember dresses usually were made up to size 18, MAYbe a 20. After that, you had to order a tent.
>

The truly bulky needed "half-sizes."

> If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian women.
>

On the West Coast, petites are tailored to fit tiny Asian women.

But the long-gone chain I remember is the 5-7-9 Shop.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:54:53 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> suppose you also think sodas sizes have shrunk, too?
>
> -sw

Your doctor should be the one drawing blood and testing it, not you.
I currently take .2mg Synthroid but you don't see me drawing my own
blood and testing it using my employers resources (as Kathleen has
openly admitted a few times).

-sw

On Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:50:16 AM UTC-7, Kalmia wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:32:59 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:36:18 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > I'll tell you what shrank! My pants! That's what!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > Dress sizes have increased, What used to be considered a size 10 is
>
> > > more like a size 2 these days.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, "vanity sizing" rules the day. My wife discovered years ago that,
>
> the more expensive the garment, the smaller the size she takes.
>
>
>
> But back in the 50s, the then National Bureau of Standards helped the
>
> relatively new Ready-to-Wear industry standardize women's clothing sizes,
>
> based on measuring a bunch of real live women:
>
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20040409...drawnstds.htm#
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't think there were any sizes like 1X, 2X 3X in those days. I can remember dresses usually were made up to size 18, MAYbe a 20. After that, you had to order a tent.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The truly bulky needed "half-sizes."
>
>
>
> > If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian women.
>
> >
>
>
>
> On the West Coast, petites are tailored to fit tiny Asian women.
>
>
>
> But the long-gone chain I remember is the 5-7-9 Shop.

Oh, yeah......I recall they were always on an upper floor, at least the ones I visited.

On Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43:22 PM UTC-5, Bregs wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:54:53 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>
>
> > suppose you also think sodas sizes have shrunk, too?
>
> >
>
> > -sw
>
>
>
> Your doctor should be the one drawing blood and testing it, not you.
>
> I currently take .2mg Synthroid but you don't see me drawing my own
>
> blood and testing it using my employers resources (as Kathleen has
>
> openly admitted a few times).
>
But...but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ymeuOz0hZU
>
> -sw

--Bryan

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>
> But the long-gone chain I remember is the 5-7-9 Shop.

I have no recollection of that, but I do remember Joseph Magnin which
was an upscale west coast chain tailored to junior sizes.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 9/25/2014 11:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
> If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing
> in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late
> eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian women.

I still have a dressy outfit I bought at Petite Sophisticates in the
mid-90's. I needed something special for a fancy company party. It
still fits

You can find petite clothing but you either have to shop via catalog or
some really high-end (read expensive) shops.

Jill

On 9/26/2014 1:11 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>>
>> But the long-gone chain I remember is the 5-7-9 Shop.
>
> I have no recollection of that, but I do remember Joseph Magnin which
> was an upscale west coast chain tailored to junior sizes.
>
>
The problem is juniors (as I think of them) is for teens. I need misses
sizes, albeit small ones - 6 or 8. Size 5 or 7 just doesn't fit right
on mature women.

Jill

On 9/24/2014 5:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> When I was a kid my favourite chocolate bar was Sweet Marie. Later on I
> was hooked on Turtles, which were often sold in a pack of two, or was it
> three<?>. Later on I got hooked on dark chocolate and I rarely have milk
> chocolate anymore. If any of the old standards come out with a dark
> chocolate version I am likely to try it.

snip...

Never tried dark chocolate until Margaret Suran sent me some by mail,
not sure when, but it was before 9/11. Loved it.

Becca

On 9/26/2014 9:57 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/25/2014 11:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>> If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing
>> in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late
>> eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian
>> women.
>
> I still have a dressy outfit I bought at Petite Sophisticates in the
> mid-90's. I needed something special for a fancy company party. It
> still fits

That was a nice store.

You can be fat but still be petite. (no, I am not commenting about
you, Jill, heh) The idea is that the hems and sleeves are shorter.

> You can find petite clothing but you either have to shop via catalog or
> some really high-end (read expensive) shops.

Most department stores have a petite section. I'm never happier
than when I find pants in petite that I don't have to hem.
Significantly shortening some clothing can change the shape in
a bad way and they won't look as they were intended.

nancy

On 9/26/2014 10:34 AM, Becca EmaNymton wrote:
> On 9/24/2014 5:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid my favourite chocolate bar was Sweet Marie. Later on I
>> was hooked on Turtles, which were often sold in a pack of two, or was it
>> three<?>. Later on I got hooked on dark chocolate and I rarely have milk
>> chocolate anymore. If any of the old standards come out with a dark
>> chocolate version I am likely to try it.
>
> snip...
>
> Never tried dark chocolate until Margaret Suran sent me some by mail,
> not sure when, but it was before 9/11. Loved it.
>
> Becca
>
I miss Margaret! Does anyone know how she's doing? I called her last
year to wish her a happy belated birthday (my card was returned because
they added a 'B' to the address of her apartment). She was gracious as
usual but rushed me off the phone. I was told by another RFC poster she
does that all the time now.

She once sent me a tin of homemade Hamantashen (sp). Delicious! She
sent me a tin of pirouline wafers, too. Countless other little things.
And cookbooks! (I finally had to ask her to stop sending me
cookbooks.) Right after 9/11 she sent me some pins, one of which was
hand-beaded red white & blue in the shape of a ribbon. Such a sweet
lady. I know she was devastated when her friend Marcel died.

Jill

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:57:52 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 9/25/2014 11:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
> > If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing
> > in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late
> > eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian women.
>
> I still have a dressy outfit I bought at Petite Sophisticates in the
> mid-90's. I needed something special for a fancy company party. It
> still fits
>
> You can find petite clothing but you either have to shop via catalog or
> some really high-end (read expensive) shops.
>

You can find petit sizes everywhere here, even at Sears and Target.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 9/26/2014 10:38 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 9/26/2014 9:57 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I still have a dressy outfit I bought at Petite Sophisticates in the
>> mid-90's. I needed something special for a fancy company party. It
>> still fits
>
> That was a nice store.
>
> You can be fat but still be petite. (no, I am not commenting about
> you, Jill, heh) The idea is that the hems and sleeves are shorter.
>
I doubt you're fat, Nancy. I *hated* hemming pants! I did plenty of
hemming over the years. It's nice to find slacks ready to wear, no need
to break out the measuring tape, scizzors, needle and thread. BTDT,
don't want to do it again.

>> You can find petite clothing but you either have to shop via catalog or
>> some really high-end (read expensive) shops.
>
> Most department stores have a petite section. I'm never happier
> than when I find pants in petite that I don't have to hem. Significantly
> shortening some clothing can change the shape in
> a bad way and they won't look as they were intended.
>
> nancy
>
True enough. Petites are available. You just have to know where to
look for them or have the stores in your area.

Jill

On 9/24/2014 6:40 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> I might be the old fart in the crowd, but I remember back in the 50s we
>> had 5 cent and ten cent chocolate bars.
>
> One of my favorites was a Clark Bar. Also no longer as good.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Bar
> http://www.candyblog.net/blog/item/clark_bar/

Never had a Clark bar, Zagnut, 5th Avenue, Oh Henry, Skor, Marathon,
Whatchamacalit (sp), LaffyTaffy, Airhead, Good & Plenty, Take 5,
BarNone, Thingamajig (sp), Alpine White, NutRageous, and many more that
are not coming to mind, in fact, I had to look some of those up.

Candy is nice, and I eat almost anything, but I like plantain chips,
corn nuts, Chex Mix, Doritos, pretzels, popcorn, Cheetos, nuts, Bugles,
sunflower seeds, pepitas.

Becca

On 9/26/2014 10:54 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:57:52 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2014 11:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>>> If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing
>>> in those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late
>>> eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian women.
>>
>> I still have a dressy outfit I bought at Petite Sophisticates in the
>> mid-90's. I needed something special for a fancy company party. It
>> still fits
>>
>> You can find petite clothing but you either have to shop via catalog or
>> some really high-end (read expensive) shops.
>>
>
> You can find petit sizes everywhere here, even at Sears and Target.
>
>
Of course you can. IF you have a Sears or Target nearby.

Jill

On 9/24/2014 10:56 PM, sf wrote:

>snip...
> Hubby and I used to love those bags of mini Hershey's chocolates that
> came out for Halloween. He would grab all the Special Dark and I took
> the Crunch. Trick r Treaters got what was left. Haven't seen those
> bags in years... but after the last Crunch bar I bought (which was
> cheapened beyond belief), I'll stick with special dark.... unless that
> one has gone under too.

My ob/gyn gives out Special Dark, she knows what women like. Buying
those large bags of assorted Halloween candy, is how I tried a few of
candy bars for the first time, like the 100 GRAND bar. We have a friend
in Germany, who brings back a case of them when he visits the USA.
Having tried them, I knew what he was talking about.

Becca

On 9/25/2014 10:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:

> I don't think there were any sizes like 1X, 2X 3X in those days. I
> can remember dresses usually were made up to size 18, MAYbe a 20.
> After that, you had to order a tent.
>
> If you are petite, you'll hardly ever find a shop specializing in
> those sizes. I used to love Petite Sophisticates in the late
> eighties, but I fear they folded due to the enlargement of Amercian
> women.

You are right, petites are hard to find. I tried on a blouse a few weeks
ago, and it came down to my knees. A few clothing stores will have
petite sizes, but the selection is small.

Becca

On 9/26/2014 11:15 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/26/2014 10:38 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> You can be fat but still be petite. (no, I am not commenting about
>> you, Jill, heh) The idea is that the hems and sleeves are shorter.
>>
> I doubt you're fat, Nancy.

Ha, I'm not skinny but I'm happy to report I'm in a size 6
pants, thanks to vanity sizing. At my skinniest, I was never
smaller than an 8, and I weigh more now.

> I *hated* hemming pants!

They're the worst, and if you have to hem them too much,
they look weird. Most pants aren't straight leg.

> I did plenty of
> hemming over the years. It's nice to find slacks ready to wear, no need
> to break out the measuring tape, scizzors, needle and thread. BTDT,
> don't want to do it again.

I hear ya. It's no fun getting them even. I didn't wear
slacks to work, but if I had to have a skirt taken up, I'd
still take them to a tailor most of the time.

>> Most department stores have a petite section.

> True enough. Petites are available. You just have to know where to
> look for them or have the stores in your area.

What was annoying about petites is you'd have to buy a larger
size. A 10 petite should be the same as a regular 10 only shorter,
but that isn't how it was.

nancy