...Are we all thinning as centuries go by??

[Dreams_in_Pink]

Seriously.
I visited Rapunzel's Delight website for some inspiration and while looking at the very old photos of people with long hair, I realized how amazingly thick their hair were compared to ours. I mean, we do have thick-haired longhairs here but it's very rare and people compliment like crazy when they see waist-length hair with thick hemline. As far as i can see from those old photos, every longhair had the same thick hemline at their ankles! There isn't a single person that has i or even ii hair!

So, i wonder why there's such a drastic difference in thickness between past and present. Did old people only photographed thick-haired people? Or maybe thin-haired people never grew their hair then? Maybe it's part of evolution, since we no longer need out hair to protect ourselves? Or maybe the absence of chemicals prevented hair loss?

Sorry if this is a silly thing to worry about, but i became thickness-aware when i lost half my thickness in past 10 years :(

[jaine]

Another possibility is that maybe a higher percentage of people who have thick hair choose to wear it shorter or thin it out because of the hassle. I know I cut mine off in part because I was tired of the mass and weight of it. My sister has a massively thick seal-clubbing long braid like the kind you see in old pictures, and mine was like that before I cut it, but it's a lot less hair at pixie length.

In fact, everyone I've met in person who has extremely thick hair has mentioned to me at some point how frustrated they are with it and how much they wish they had less hair. It's easy to get less hair - you just cut it or thin it. I think this forum is kind of outside the mainstream in wanting hair to stay that thick.

[spidermom]

I think the hair appears to be thicker partly because the stuff that they used to wash hair with was very harsh and made the hair shafts swell and the cuticle lift.

[Dreams_in_Pink]

In fact, everyone I've met in person who has extremely thick hair has mentioned to me at some point how frustrated they are with it and how much they wish they had less hair. It's easy to get less hair - you just cut it or thin it. I think this forum is kind of outside the mainstream in wanting hair to stay that thick.

I know, i also complained about my thickness in the past, but there are more people wanting thicker hemline than thinner. Maybe not thicker hair, but thicker hemline.

There's nothing wrong in wanting thin hair though, it's not what i'm saying. My concern is because there could actually be an overall gradual thinning going on as time passes by. Actually, what i'm concerned about is what's causing this situation, like, is it the products we're using? how did they have the amazing thickness back then?

[jaine]

I was picturing the possibility that the same number of people have hair that would grow in thick if they left it alone - but more of them are cutting or thinning it to appear "average" instead of "seal-clubbingly thick." (is that a word? ha ha)

I'm just listing possibilities though, it's certainly possible that there are fewer people with thick hair.

Nutrition was definitely better 100 years ago.


ETA: just to clarify I wasn't picturing someone thinning out their hair in order to make it look thin - I was picturing someone with massively thick hair thinning it to make it look just plain old "thick" - instead of "massively huge and seal-clubbingly overwhelmingly thick." :) There's a point at which super-thick hair becomes undesireable in the modern world but maybe it wasn't undesireable back then.

[Dreams_in_Pink]

I was picturing the possibility that the same number of people have hair that would grow in thick if they left it alone - but more of them are cutting or thinning it to appear "average" instead of "seal-clubbingly thick." (is that a word? ha ha)

I really hope that's the case :(

[jaine]

Probably a mixture of causes... I can think of 3 possible ones but there may be more.

1. Shorter hairstyles are more common now than they were 100 years ago and it's difficult to notice thick hair when it's worn short.

2. Hair thins naturally with age, and the average age of the population keeps going up.

3. Nutrition declines as people eat more and more processed foods. Hair loss is a side effect of many health problems

that's all I can think of at the moment anyway.

[dropinthebucket]

interesting - will have to go over and look at the photos on that site. were these all "hair models" (even the 18th C had them!)? that would skew the look of things, just as our contemporary media does with photoretouching, etc. i'm interested in the question you pose, too, though because of all the side effects particularly from the added hormones in milk and dairy products. all kinds of long-term effects have been noted by researches, including thinning hair, eczema, sebaceous gland issues, fatty tissue deposit issues, breast enlargement in males, and the list goes on. one of the arguments being put forward is that the excess female hormones in milk (fed to cows to increase milk production) in some way interfere with the natural, human estrogens. and we all know that estrogen imbalance in menopause and postpartum causes thinning hair and hair shedding. so..... it's an intersting link. the milk companies have huge amounts of money at their disposal to lobby against scientific research on these issues, however, and we all know that the FDA is just a corporate front. think i will look into this more, now that you bring it up .... thanks for sharing! (off to look at web site!)

[Olde Soul]

There's also the possibility that folks with i or ii hair had a harder time growing that long and were therefore not photographed as often. Everybody else was wearing their hair up; I'm sure there are some thin hair heads in there.

[2peasinapod]

I don't think everyone had thick hair. Looking at old pictures of my family, I see lots of people with really fine hair and i thickness. I don't think we have anything to worry about. ;)

[Belisarius]

I was picturing the possibility that the same number of people have hair that would grow in thick if they left it alone - but more of them are cutting or thinning it to appear "average" instead of "seal-clubbingly thick." (is that a word? ha ha)

I'm just listing possibilities though, it's certainly possible that there are fewer people with thick hair.

Nutrition was definitely better 100 years ago.


ETA: just to clarify I wasn't picturing someone thinning out their hair in order to make it look thin - I was picturing someone with massively thick hair thinning it to make it look just plain old "thick" - instead of "massively huge and seal-clubbingly overwhelmingly thick." :) There's a point at which super-thick hair becomes undesireable in the modern world but maybe it wasn't undesireable back then.
That about the nutrition thing is at the very least highly location dependant. My father's father was a real short guy while most people in my family nowadays are very tall, he simply didn't get enough food when he was young.

There are indeed some lhc-members who want to have somewhat thinner hair.

[pineconejg]

I am with the hair-model theory... Or at least, why would someone save a thin-hair picture for posterity when thick hair is considered to be more beautiful?

JG

[Fractalsofhair]

Food wise, the poor people wouldn't have had enough food to be healthy, so although your average person had more veggies, and more exercise, a lot of people were very underweight.

Hair wise, thinned out hair is a serious option, and most of the people photographed with long hair were hair models. Also, curly haired people often brushed their hair. How many of them are really ii but 2b-3a, and brushed out to look III etc? It also might have been rare to cut layers in hair, hair was worn up often, and things like that might have helped. They did have very horrid heat styling, and soap was used to wash hair(which works amazingly for my hair, but not all hair is like mine!), but hair was washed somewhat rarely. Note that one of my great great grandfathers(maybe one more great) had longish hair(not 100% sure of total length), but it broke off to about shoulder length when his wife decided his hair would look better curly, so she curled it with a hot iron! That could have easily been worn in a bun by a female, but her hair wouldn't have been photographed. Heat styling wasn't that rare either.

[JenniferNoel]

I am with the hair-model theory... Or at least, why would someone save a thin-hair picture for posterity when thick hair is considered to be more beautiful?

JG

Good point!
And now a days of course thinner, razored, layered hair is more frequently photographed to some degree giving that illusion an extra boost.

Not to mention choices that could very well alter (in a teeny tiny way) physical and mental evolution, such as lifestyle, food choices, stress, hereditary issues, etc. could have some kind of weird roll to play in thinning hair... don't listen to me, I don't read... :D

[GoddesJourney]

It could be that the rapunzel website tends to only post pictures of people with longer, thicker hair because it's the rapunzel website.

[Igor]

You have to realise that you don’t have as much picture evidence from the past as we do now. Pictures of hair specifically were only taken of the very extremes among long hairs. You can’t speculate like this unless you start going through the “normal” pictures of normal grandparents to compare to today

[Coffeebug]

A lot of people have the weight taken out now don't they - I used to when I was a teenager cos my hair was so bloody bulky.

Also I think some people's hair doesn't react at all well to heat - hairdryers can cause a lot of breakage making the length look thinner for some people.

[Kathie]

I also think it’s partly a fashion thing.
All too often I’ve been at the hairdressers and they’ve taken to my hair with thinning shears to “get the weight out”. One actually said “we’ll get rid of this big loaf of bread on the back of your head” as I took my hair down, like having a thick updo is a bad thing!:mad:

[Coffeebug]

Bit rude!!!!

[Tap Dancer]

Bit rude!!!!
What are you talking about? :confused:

[jaine]

What are you talking about? :confused:

I think she meant the hairstylist's bread loaf comment sounded rude?

I don't think the hairstylist meant to be rude though ... she was probably just making an educated guess based on past interactions with other thick-haired people and what they requested. There are so many advertisements out there singing the praise of "volume" and "body" - I have to specifically tell hairstylists very clearly that I want LESS volume and I want my hair to be SMALLER! I say those keywords at least 3 times every time I go to get it cut. Gradually they catch on. :)

Anyway, not to ramble ... basically I think the super-thick hair that might have been in fashion back then but it's seen as a hassle today by most people. Though there are exceptions.

[Armelle]

Something that just occured to me...think about our modern air conditioning and controlled indoor environments. It removes most of the humidity. I know my hair swells to epic proportions once it warms up outside. Back then, not much in the way of environment control. Not sure this explains it, but it's an idea.

[Kathie]

I think she meant the hairstylist's bread loaf comment sounded rude?

I don't think the hairstylist meant to be rude though ... she was probably just making an educated guess based on past interactions with other thick-haired people and what they requested.

Yeah, he did try and say it in a positive way (as positive as that sort of comment can actually sound) i.e., the light layered style he was about to give me would be easier for me to handle on a day to day basis.

[indigonight]

another thing is people did not wear their hair layered, as others have pointed out, layers nowadays are pretty much the way to go on long hair.
Look at people's hair, most sport layered styles which gives the impression of 'thinner' hair.
I have very thick hair and may now grow out my layers after frequenting LHC and seeing that a thick hemline is a standard of beauty here but before due to thickness of my hair and fashion I have always worn layers on my hair, most of my friends do the same.

[GuinevereMay]

Also, take into account that most women wore their hair UP in photos. They only wore it down if they were young girls or were deliberately taking photos of their hair.

[Roseate]

As far as i can see from those old photos, every longhair had the same thick hemline at their ankles! There isn't a single person that has i or even ii hair!

You mean "every historic longhair featured on the Rapunzels's Delight website" not "every historic longhair", right?

1)Photographs were pretty expensive. You wouldn't have wasted your money taking a photograph of your hair if it wasn't exceptional.

2)The website is devoted to exceptional hair, so even if a i terminal at waist had taken a picture of her hair, I doubt they would feature it.

I have a small collection of 19thc photographs, just average people, and from the size of the buns, they were not all Rapunzels. I don't think we need to worry.

[ericthegreat]

Overall I think not.

Evolution, if you believe in it still takes thousands upon thousands of years at its fastest to produce even the most minor of changes. So, pretty much if someone from say 10,000 years ago were brought here to this present time with a time machine, and we gave him or her a modern-day haircut with layers and highlights and we put then in flashy clothes and give them an I-Phone, they would look just like anyone else.

I do know that today, since layered haircuts are so popular, even someone with naturally thick iii hair might look like someone with ii hair because of the layering. Back then, the idea of cutting layers into your hair wasn't even invented yet by beauticians, so by default everyone got the simple and classic one-length blunt cut. So of course, back then everyone must have seemed to have thicker hair. Also, these days highlights and all these different shades of haircolors are very popular, as well as damaging heat styling like blowing out and flat ironing and also using a curling iron. Getting hair extensions are also very popular now. All of these hair beautifying services naturally must cause many people to have some kind of breakage or damage to their hair. So even if someone is naturally an iii, because of the layering and highlighting and haircoloring and heat styling, they are not growing out their own hair to its healthiest and fullest potential. :)

[rusika1]

I've only read the first page of comments, so forgive me if someone has already suggested this.

I think that extremely long, extremely thick hair was as unusual 150 years ago as it is now. Women whose 'crowning glory' was actually glorious were photographed with it down so they could show it off. Everyone else wore their hair up for photos, as they would for day to day life.

Think about it. Hair wasn't washed as often, but when it was, there were no special shampoos or conditioners designed to pamper the hair. If you were fashionable, then you used various poofs, puffs, rats and switches to bulk out your hair. And have you looked at the curling irons of the 19th century? Downright frightening.

[Fiferstone]

I agree that the vintage photos of people with exceptional hair were made because the hair was exceptional. Troll a flea market or antique mall and look at cartes de visite from ordinary people and you find fairly average-looking hair.

What I do think, though, is that our layered cuts and lots and lots of product/manipulation DO tend to thin modern hair out more than "period" hair, in part because the bog-standard surfacants in our hair cleaning products are much more aggressive, and we do more manipulation of our color/texture than they did/could.

I truly think that most people no longer know what healthy, un-fooled-around-with, well-kept hair looks like, hence they express such consternation about "greasy" "unmanageable" "unattractive" "unwieldly" long hair.

They genuinely don't get that you can simply "set it and forget it."

My :twocents:

[-simply Venus-]

I think it's possible. It's probably all of the chemicals and toxins we have in our bodies. Even new born babies have like 100 chemicals in their bodies. =/

[beez1717]

I agree that the vintage photos of people with exceptional hair were made because the hair was exceptional. Troll a flea market or antique mall and look at cartes de visite from ordinary people and you find fairly average-looking hair.

What I do think, though, is that our layered cuts and lots and lots of product/manipulation DO tend to thin modern hair out more than "period" hair, in part because the bog-standard surfacants in our hair cleaning products are much more aggressive, and we do more manipulation of our color/texture than they did/could.

I truly think that most people no longer know what healthy, un-fooled-around-with, well-kept hair looks like, hence they express such consternation about "greasy" "unmanageable" "unattractive" "unwieldly" long hair.

They genuinely don't get that you can simply "set it and forget it."

My :twocents:


awesome point :) like you said, I think the people with the awesome thick hair were remembered and the people with the thin hair weren't. we are going to say the same thing about today in 40 years or so I think.

[Ursula]

Photographs aren't always representative.

Many of the photographs of women with their hair loose are actually advertisements, put out by companies that sold hair products. It wouldn't have been considered proper for an adult woman to have her hair loose in ordinary circumstances. So these types of photographs are about as representative of hair of that time as Pantene ads are representative of hair today.

Also, for updos, it was very, very common for women to use various tricks to make their hair look thicker. Backcombing to rough up the hair and make it look thick, switches of hair that were used to supplement a bun, and rats used to support the hair and give the illusion of fullness were all common at various points in the 19th century and are well documented.

And, of course, having your photograph taken was a very big deal back then. So women would arrange their hair in the way they thought was most flattering, and a woman who thought her hair was too think would choose a style that she thought made it look the best. Look at how many pictures there are of women with their hair combed back smoothly and pinned up behind their head, out of sight - so if it was thin, you'd never know from the photograph, which was taken looking straight at the face.

[GuinevereMay]

I think it's possible. It's probably all of the chemicals and toxins we have in our bodies. Even new born babies have like 100 chemicals in their bodies. =/
As opposed to the "good old days" where morphine was a treatment for a newborn's colic and mercury was a cure all.

[StephanieB]

Seriously.
I visited Rapunzel's Delight website for some inspiration and while looking at the very old photos of people with long hair, I realized how amazingly thick their hair were compared to ours. I mean, we do have thick-haired longhairs here but it's very rare and people compliment like crazy when they see waist-length hair with thick hemline.
Seriously? Are you joking??

How can you seriously think that a specialty-type website is even remotely accurate to get any kind of idea, or make any kind of guess, as to what people were, or are, like overall - then or now? :confused:
Do you realize that that is a specialty sort of 'site?
Do you realize that LHC is also a specialty-type of 'site that does NOT represent 'the average American/Brit/western European'?
We LHCers are more the anomaly than the average. (well - regarding our hair length, we are :D)



As far as i can see from those old photos, every longhair had the same thick hemline at their ankles! There isn't a single person that has i or even ii hair!
Most people back then were as skilled in the art of visual deception back then as we are now. ;)

When you see a light blonde these days ..... especially one with very dark eyebrows - and maybe with dark roots ..... do you assume s/he is a natural blonde?
Before you ever saw LHC (or similar 'sites) - when you saw someone with a very large bun... or with large rolls... did you assume that it was all thier own hair? Or did you suspect hair rat/s?
When you see a DD or DDD bust on a woman with an otherwise slight figure, do you think she's naturally like that? Or do you think that she might have enhanced herself in one or another way?

Similarly, many women of the past used hair extensions, rats, fillers, dyes, etc - just as we do today.
Women of the 11th century did all of these ^ things, as did women earlier in the so-called Dark Ages and as women throughout history up until now.
EXs: 12th century women stuffed cloth braid cases to look as if they had even longer and thicker braids than they really had; women of the late 13th and early 14th centuries used fale human hair they'd bought from poor women who sold their hair for food to survive upon to 'pad' their large braided updo's; women in the later 15th & 16th century used human hair (obtained from the same sources - poor women) to pad their braid-bunned hairdo's
The list goes on and on and one, but those are some of the hairstyles I myself can attest (thourhg my own research) are perfectly historically accurate.
I don't do so-called 'Viking' period - not my thing - but they, too, used extension hair into their braids. (also obtained form poverty-stricken women and/or slaves)



So, i wonder why there's such a drastic difference in thickness between past and present.

Did old people only photographed thick-haired people?

Or maybe thin-haired people never grew their hair then?

Maybe it's part of evolution, since we no longer need out hair to protect ourselves?

Or maybe the absence of chemicals prevented hair loss?
There isn't.

Yes and No. As has already been said - just like now, the 'beautiful people' have always been and probably always will be the most photographed/painted/sculpted (and represented in any other art media).

Nope. Although the thinner-haired women probablhy had just as much trouble growing their hair longer and thicker than we thin-haired people do these days.

Eh, no. Evolution doesn't come into play (ie - isn't noticeable for marking any changes) in one century. One century - regarding evolution - is akin to one hour to your life time or mine.

If anything, women of the past used much harsher 'chemicals' (albeit usually more natural ones) than we do today, for the most part -- again generalizing broadly -- AND those women had access to a lot less to help repair their hair than we do nowadays.



Nutrition was definitely better 100 years ago.
Actually, that's absolutely untrue.
(if you want to make such sweepingly generalized statements - although that's always going to produce untruths, because any such absolutist statement is going to be wrong since such things vary quite a great deal from region to region across the world)

If you mean in the 'western world' - especially in the UK and the USA - that is generally untrue: Most Brits and Americans circa 1910 ate frighteningly unhealthily. Try looking up what most Edwardians ate - and how much they ate! (but it'll probably make you sick to your stomach - lol)

There's a reason why most Edwardian people in photos are ... shall we say 'stout'? Let's be honest - the words for most photographed folks of the time were obese (by our current medical definition). Understand that "most photographed Edwardians" automatically means the rich - those who could afford to eat whatever they pleased, and as much as they wished, and didn't do much physical work; they had servants to do most of the hard work necessary in that era. Photography was comparatively incredibly expensive, and virtually all portraits were of wealthy people, or upper-middle class folks who 'blew' what was to them a fortune for a portrait... even solidly-middle-class people couldn't afford a photographic portrait, at least not without 'doing without' a lot to compensate financially for that 'folly'.

More people in the western world (most especially in the US) eat more healthily today - even despite our current obesity/junkfood problem - than was the case 100 years ago, in 1910. And these days, more of us do more excercize that they did back then. The exception to the hard labor rule of thumb I just stated would be the poor - who, of course, had to work very hard physically for their entire lives.

[ericthegreat]

Seriously? Are you joking??

How can you seriously think that a specialty-type website is even remotely accurate to get any kind of idea, or make any kind of guess, as to what people were, or are, like overall - then or now? :confused:
Most people back then were as skilled in the art of visual deception back then as we are now. ;)

Similarly, many women of the past used hair extensions, rats, fillers, dyes, etc - just as we do today.
Women of the 11th century did all of these ^ things, as did women earlier in the so-called Dark Ages and as women throughout history up until now.
EXs: 12th century women stuffed cloth braid cases to look as if they had even longer and thicker braids than they really had; women of the late 13th and early 14th centuries used fale human hair they'd bought from poor women who sold their hair for food to survive upon to 'pad' their large braided updo's; women in the later 15th & 16th century used human hair (obtained from the same sources - poor women) to pad their braid-bunned hairdo's
The list goes on and on and one, but those are some of the hairstyles I myself can attest (thourhg my own research) are perfectly historically accurate.
I don't do so-called 'Viking' period - not my thing - but they, too, used extension hair into their braids. (also obtained form poverty-stricken women and/or slaves)

Eh, no. Evolution doesn't come into play (ie - isn't noticeable for marking any changes) in one century. One century - regarding evolution - is akin to one hour to your life time or mine.






I agree totally. :)

And remember again, since the only people back then who would have had their their photograph taken or their portrait taken had to have been at least reasonably wealthy enough to afford it, then of course they would also want to look their absolute best. For the women of course, this meant showing off the appearance of having long, thick, luxurious hair. As Stephanie mentioned, I'm sure women way back then also had several hair tricks up their sleeves. Plus, long haired wigs have been in fashion since the beginning of human civilization itself. The ancient royal Egyptians were already wearing long haired wigs as a fashion statement. Its very possible, even probable that some of the women in these pictures are wearing wigs or had hair extensions or hairpieces added to their own existing long hair.

[Ursula]

Nutrition was definitely better 100 years ago.


Absolutely not.

There was a great deal of variety in how people could eat in the past, depending on their circumstances. But many things that we take for granted now were unheard of then.

First off, food was entirely seasonal. So for much of the world, that meant long stretches (months) where you might have no fresh food at all. Winter would mean bread or porridge, dried beans, meats (for the wealthy), and the occasional dried fruit, or the sorts of fruits/vegetables that can be kept in a cold cellar, with those being used up or spoiling by later winter. Meats were often preserved by salting and smoking, neither of which are particularly healthy.

In the summer you'd have the opposite problem - without refrigeration food would spoil quickly, so that you might have a lot of one food for a week, and then not eat it again for an entire year. Preserved food from the previous year would be used up, leaving a different sort of gap in the diet.

Plus, without good transportation, a failed harvest locally would mean famine and starvation locally.

With the spread of the railway and steam ships, and the development of greenhouses, you began to see a little bit of out-of-season produce being available, but generally only in cities and only for the wealthy.

In addition, people didn't know about nutrition. So deficiency diseases were common. And for people with limited means, lack of knowledge about nutrition often meant dropping variety from one's diet when food or money was scarce, such as buying grains for bread or porridge, but no beans/legumes.

Even 20 years ago, winter diets weren't as varied as they are now. A grocery store in the US or Western Europe, these days, will offer a wide variety of imported produce, making eating a varied diet of fresh foods possible even in midwinter. Things like berries, tropical fruits (except for lemons, limes and oranges) and the more delicate seasonal vegetables such as asparagus, summer squashes, etc. would pretty much disappear in the winter when I was a kid.

Try figuring out what you can get locally that can be kept without refrigeration through the winter.

[StephanieB]

Ericthegreat - I didn't even get into history and wigs, but you are correct.


I have to laugh.
Even when we're discussing things irrelevant to sustaining life (or as my father says - and has always said - 'keeping body and soul together') - we're well over the average in the intelligence department. :D
We've gone from what 99% of people would call 'silly hairstyles' to serious historical and anthropological studies. :cheese:

[jaine]

I stand corrected about my nutrition generalization. It makes sense that any generalization would be untrue. I have no doubt that some people's nutrition in 1900 was worse than the average modern diet. I think on average it was better.

There are mainly 2 reasons why I think nutrition was better on average.
1. Meat was more likely to be grass-fed instead of grain-fed meat, which makes a big difference in the omega 3:6 ratio, which is a factor in heart disease.
2. People were more likely to eat "real" food, plants and animals, instead of processed junk food.

But I agree that obviously there are exceptions; not everyone's diet in 1900 was better than the modern diet and good/bad harvests would have made a bigger difference compared to today.

BTW having vegetables and fruits year-round on a local diet is easy if you preserve things during the summer months. 90% of what I eat is local and it's not as hard as you think! It's also great for the environment and more tasty to eat local food, but that's a discussion for another day... :)

[Flynn]

I think the hair appears to be thicker partly because the stuff that they used to wash hair with was very harsh and made the hair shafts swell and the cuticle lift.

Exactly. I think it's "bigger" rather than thicker.

[Igor]

1) People didn’t live long enough or overate enough to die from heart attacks anyways
2) The obsession we have today with unprocessed food is a pure luxury that didn’t exist prior in history. Just go back to before refrigerators were common and people would be happy if the food wasn’t half rotten already before being served

Even if you take home-grown vegetables or local vegetables, you simply wouldn’t have the same variety available to you some decades ago

I stand corrected about my nutrition generalization. It makes sense that any generalization would be untrue. I have no doubt that some people's nutrition in 1900 was worse than the average modern diet. I think on average it was better.

There are mainly 2 reasons why I think nutrition was better on average.
1. Meat was more likely to be grass-fed instead of grain-fed meat, which makes a big difference in the omega 3:6 ratio, which is a factor in heart disease.
2. People were more likely to eat "real" food, plants and animals, instead of processed junk food.

But I agree that obviously there are exceptions; not everyone's diet in 1900 was better than the modern diet and good/bad harvests would have made a bigger difference compared to today.

BTW having vegetables and fruits year-round on a local diet is easy if you preserve things during the summer months. 90% of what I eat is local and it's not as hard as you think! It's also great for the environment and more tasty to eat local food, but that's a discussion for another day... :)

[Ursula]

Preserving food in the 19th century wasn't as sophisticated as it is now.

For example, canning wasn't invented until the Napolionic wars, and wasn't perfected and understood until much later. Canning jars weren't available commercially until nearly 1860, and even then they were quite expensive, not affordable to most farming families who had only limited participation in the cash economy.

Foods could be dried, but without modern equipment that was unreliable, as a change in the weather would mean that food spoiled instead of dried. Foods could be salted - but unless you lived by the sea or close to a salt mine, salt was prohibitively expensive to be used extensively for food preservation.

Some foods could be fermented in order to be preserved, such as making beer, wine, pickles or sauerkraut.

A limited number of foods could be stored, such as apples or winter squashes. This could last until perhaps midwinter, but the quality would decline steadily as the winter progressed, so that these foods were generally used up in early winter, to avoid having them go to waste.

But in terms of practical food sources for winter, the poor basically just had grain, the vast majority of the population had grains and legumes supplemented by a small amount of other foods, in very limited varieties, while the rich tended to eat large quantities of meat, along with bread and smaller amounts of other foods.

[jaine]

1) People didn’t live long enough or overate enough to die from heart attacks anyways
2) The obsession we have today with unprocessed food is a pure luxury that didn’t exist prior in history. Just go back to before refrigerators were common and people would be happy if the food wasn’t half rotten already before being served

Even if you take home-grown vegetables or local vegetables, you simply wouldn’t have the same variety available to you some decades ago

You make some interesting points, but refrigeration is just one of many way to store food without letting it rot. (I don't mean this harshly at all.... it's just a fun discussion.) My personal favorite place to store food is in the belly of a friend or neighbor. :) Probably someday they'll return the favor when they have a bit of food that's too big to eat alone.
But I'll drop it; I don't want to overtake this thread with a side discussion ... like I said I'm definitely not a historian! :)

[Milui Elenath]

I also don't think that nutrition was better 100 years ago but I also don't think it is better now than then.

It is different


We don't eat seasonally, we do eat a lot of processed foods with added artificial preservatives, colours, things refined so much that they have to put the goodness back in.(Even half rotten foods may be nutritionally better than some of those) There are huge amounts of antibiotics in our foods. We also don't work as physically hard which may be a plus or minus considering exercise is good but over exerting oneself without good health will shorten the lifespan.

But in wondering about hair thickness/thiness what about other cultures who are adopting a more westernised diet? Are there any differences there?

[Autumnberry]

awesome point :) like you said, I think the people with the awesome thick hair were remembered and the people with the thin hair weren't. we are going to say the same thing about today in 40 years or so I think.

I also think that is such a good point! Unprocessed hair today is perceived as feral more than natural, implying that it NEEDS to be processed to be civilized. That is surely one of my peeves!

[Igor]

For those interested in some knowledge about nutrition in previous times, there is a very funny and educational series called The Supersizers go [insert time period] (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=the+supersizers+go&page=1) and The Supersizers eat [insert time period] (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=the+supersizers+eat&uni=1)
In the beginning and end of each episode they will see a doctor and the follow up results from a week on the diet from another time period can be really interesting and scary
I have linked to youtube for some of the episodes

[Cinnamon Hair]

Two words: braid waves.

[DragonLady]

For those interested in some knowledge about nutrition in previous times, there is a very funny and educational series called The Supersizers go [insert time period] (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=the+supersizers+go&page=1) and The Supersizers eat [insert time period] (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=the+supersizers+eat&uni=1)
In the beginning and end of each episode they will see a doctor and the follow up results from a week on the diet from another time period can be really interesting and scary
I have linked to youtube for some of the episodes

I just watched episode 1 and 2 of the "going Victorian" clips.

I have no trouble believing they served all that food. But I really can't bring myself to believe that the average person ate all that. Some did, certainly, but I don't believe most did.

[ravenreed]

I always wonder when people glamorize the past. We did not have better nutrition in times past. When I was a kid, my grandmother always gave me an apple and an orange at Christmas. I asked my aunt why and she told me that back when my grandmother was a girl, those were the only fruits you might be lucky enough to have at that time of year and they were special enough to warrant being given as a present.

We live in an embarrassment of riches today when it comes to foods. I don't believe that we have so many people living well past their 80's because modern diets are so horrible.

[Iylivarae]

I think some of the reasons might be:
- photos were so expensive that people didn't want to have photos taken with their hair down, if they had not-so-thick-hair. So we only see pictures of people with long hair worn down that had very thick hair.

- before the pictures were taken, the hair would be arranged very carefully so everything looked perfect

- people also didn't wash their hair that often. I personally notice a lot of shedding when I wash, so my hair would most likely be a lot thicker if I washed less often.

- People then often brushed their hair instead of combing it. Brushing adds additional volume to the hair.

[Fiferstone]

This IS an interesting discussion, but I think we're lumping the latter 3-4 decades of the 20th century with the first half of the 20th century. I think we have to acknowledge that a sea-change took place in the second half of the 20th century with regard to diet and eating practices. I think that we have lost diversity in our foodstuffs as agriculture has become agribusiness, and certain strains of crops have been selected (and others de-selected) for maximum disease- and pest-resistance and maximum shelf life. Biologists are concerned about the lack of genetic diversity in our crops andwhat that could mean. It's partly why historic places like Old Sturbridge Village and other "living history" museums that preserve "antique" farm animals and food crops are a valuable resource.

The next point I'd like to make is solely a personal observation, since I came of age at a time when fast food really began to make inroads in the majority of peoples' daily diets. I well recall a time (early to mid-60s) when a place like McDonald's was a once a month "treat", mostly for the kids. Today, people think nothing of eating 1-2 fast food meals a DAY.

I also remember when soda came in 6 oz bottles, and you had perhaps one of those, once a day.

Now it's 32 oz of the same heavily sugared (or heavily corn-syrup sweetened) beverage in one serving, with multiple similar-sized "servings" throughout the day.

This is why people have such issues with weight. Until exceptionally recently, people simply didn't know just how bad eating this sort of food on a daily basis could be. I think the nutrition labeling on the most popular menu items at McDonald's is less than a decade old.

I agree with others who argue that we must not glamorize the past. A well-rounded, healthy, balanced diet was simply not available to poor people (rural as well as urban) until the 20th century and advances in food preservation and distribution, but again, the highly processed stuff we have all around us presents special dangers, dangers of which we have only very recently become completely aware. It's why diabetes and its related conditions are at pandemic proportions. It is an enormous problem.

[SimplyViki]

Two words: braid waves.
:D That's what I was going to say. Probably brushed out, too. Boom!

[dropinthebucket]

This is a really interesting debate (and where else could you find such interesting, tolerant, diverse, and knowledgeable opinions for an online forum?! this is one of the things i love about LHC!:) ).

Dragonlady, I really liked that series, saw it when i lived in the UK. Funny, too - razor sharp wit.

One point here may be that we are talking about "now" and "then" in a kinda general way. Then when? Then where? Now where? Diets vary now, and varied then, with class, ethnicity, geographical location, availability and historical circumstance (war, natural disaster, unusual frosts, trade embargos), gender, and even individual upbringing. If we are talking about Western/European first world diets, then probably the most significant change we have seen this century is the corporatization of food as an industry - and the quest to "improve" food quality, quantity, and delivery through technology and science. (They don't call 'em Frankenfoods for nothin'! :) )

[kittensoupnrice]

Another 2 cents, here.

I just took a gander at some of the pictures on that website.

It looks to me like a lot of the pictures, the hair is piled up on one side.
If I combed my hair out evenly, tilted my head and took a picture, that's not too impressive, right?
But if I pulled all of it over onto my shoulder, it would look much more massive. Because you'd think that I had all that hair just on the side, and an equivalent amount on the other side.

I think there's some camera pandering and deliberate piling up of hair to make some of the bulk in those pictures.
Not all, but many.

[Ranee]

It were pictures like those that made me go sebum only/no water about a week ago. The way I figure it, is that the women in that time didn't wash their hair often and used a brush to groom it and keep it clean. The daily massaging could strenghten follicles, causing less sheding, thus thicker hair. I plan on putting this method to the test for at least two months and see if it really grows thicker and shinier like theirs.

[pdy2kn6]

I know what you mean, for example the sutherland sisters. Their hair looks incredibly thick. Although I have also seen thinner long hair vintage pics too. I think it is partly because alot of it is to do with them just never cutting or thinning their hair at all. Alot of us have not had the same hair that we had when were younger. Back them, some of them perhaps grew their hair from such a young age therefore remained thick all the way down to the hem.

oh, and of course like cinnamonhair said...I'm sure that brushed out braid waves also contributes to the thick-ness look

[DarkChocolate]

Alot of the hair looks brushed out as was said above.

I also think a less stressful lifestyle,healthier foods and not washing their hair everyday made it thicker. I remember when I experimented with sebum only washes my hair felt so much thicker.

[GlennaGirl]

This is somewhat an echo to a few other posts already on this thread, but hair pics from that time period are no more representative of the average person than magazine ads are today. :)

Too, it has been pointed out that photography was much more expensive at that time--in addition to much more of a chore to set up, usually requiring going in to the nearest city (if one was able) to find a photographer, or for the very rich, having one sent in; then the sitting time, the waiting time for the pictures to be ready, etc...it was NOT something that would have frivolously be done for something considered unimportant. So I doubt that a "hair picture" would have been snapped unless it was exceptional hair.

And yes. Braid waves, brushed out, will give easily double the hair's normal volume.

The Sutherland Sisters were so exceptional, yes, for their time or for any time, that that unique trait (their hair) was used for advertisements and was mentioned virtually any time a picture of them was represented. Again, this is evidence that their hair wasn't the norm. It was gasp-worthy then just as it is now. ETA: Witness this quote from the Rapunzel's Delight sight...

In New York City, the beginning of December, 1880, the Wonder Sisters launched their career showing off their long tresses and vocal talents.

[seaslug]

These women in the Rapunzel images were noted for having long thick gorgeous hair, so someone decided to photograph them and their hair. Many more women out there probably had long hair that was not quite as spectacular or thick or quite as super long so they never got a "hair photograph" taken. If they were lucky enough to get an expensive photograph taken at all, they likely wore their hair in their best most fashionable style. Down and long like in those photos was not the fashion.

[eezepeeze]

I wonder if it's because many women of that period NEVER cut their hair EVER!

Also, I wonder if it has something to do with people these days using frizz control and smoothing products. These can go a long way to making hair seem thinner and sleeker.

Another thing I thought of is the lack of heat styling in the past. I know they had curling irons in the 1800's, but they didn't have blowdryers until the mid 20th century.

This is an interesting thread. I have often wondered how women with very curly and frizzy hair (like me) managed their hair in the old days. What did they do to keep the frizz down?

It's an interesting way of looking at history, through the eyes of women's hair fashion.

[goodenough]

My great grandmother never cut her hair, and it was very thin, and it only was a little longer than bsl. She was born in 1890.

[Fractalsofhair]

eezepeeze-They probably used oils, I understand lard/bear fat were commonly used in the US, and they might have had things like flax seed gel. However, frizzy bushy curly hair was very fashionable for updos, and they had curling irons to curl brushed out curls if a woman wanted a neater look.

[BritishBraider]

I'm really not sure..... maybe they used different products, or washed their hair less and it *shudders* bulked up?

[getoffmyskittle]

I think people with short/thin hair just don't end up on websites like that..?

[teela1978]

I think that in 100 years, someone is going to be looking at our popular media and they will wonder "have we gotten fatter over the last century?"

[Capybara]

I think that in 100 years, someone is going to be looking at our popular media and they will wonder "have we gotten fatter over the last century?"

:lol: I wouldn't doubt it!

[WritingPrincess]

Also, every picture of loose hair I've seen from a hundred years ago has had braidwaves. Factor in the boom, and the hair appears much thicker.

[JenniferNoel]

I think that in 100 years, someone is going to be looking at our popular media and they will wonder "have we gotten fatter over the last century?"

*snort* Yeah, I don't doubt that too much. :p

[PiroskaCicu]

I think it could be a few reasons...

The photographers may have chosen to photograph the people with the thickest, most healthy looking hair.

Also, people now a days DO have thick hair, but they often hide it by either thinning, straightening, or other products that make the the hair appear less "big".

Another thing that it could be is that we don't eat as healthy/natural products as people did back then. They also didn't use the same chemicals as we use now in hair products. Oh and they washed their hair MUCH less!! Maybe that is a big factor in it? Who knows.... Just my two cents.

[Fiferstone]

I think that in 100 years, someone is going to be looking at our popular media and they will wonder "have we gotten fatter over the last century?"

Well, unfortunately we have. A quick search on the keywords "obesity" and "morbid obesity" in pubmed will turn up a ton of research, much of it suggesting that this is a documentable, measurable health problem. By the yardsticks that are currently in use to measure healthy body weights at different sizes, we are getting fatter.

Not arguing that those yardsticks are infallible or that people who are obese are de facto not healthy. By the measure of those yardsticks I am obese myself, and I consider myself to be healthy.

[Igor]

I think people with short/thin hair just don't end up on websites like that..?

Agreed. Why would a website like this have any “average” pictures of hair up?

[teela1978]

Well, unfortunately we have. A quick search on the keywords "obesity" and "morbid obesity" in pubmed will turn up a ton of research, much of it suggesting that this is a documentable, measurable health problem. By the yardsticks that are currently in use to measure healthy body weights at different sizes, we are getting fatter.

Not arguing that those yardsticks are infallible or that people who are obese are de facto not healthy. By the measure of those yardsticks I am obese myself, and I consider myself to be healthy.
Yes, but to my understanding the BMI of most models in current popular media has dropped over the last 50 years or so, despite increases in obesity among the general population. Looking back at this time from 100 years into the future, just looking at popular media, a person could easily guess that we all were extremely thin.

[May]

I don't *think* our hair has gotten thinner although people have gotten taller :) I think we eat WAY better now a days with "organic" and "nutrient dense'' super foods. I think we are so much healthier than we were 100's of years ago. Things were quite unhygienic then and people died relatively early.

[Elenna]

How are we going to compare hair thickness of a by-gone-era with today? They certainly didn't have hair dressers, so in general their hair was left alone to grow.

You'd need pretty big population samples of hair thickness to compare. Then there is the time-machine travel to schedule to the past & back!

[getoffmyskittle]

How are we going to compare hair thickness of a by-gone-era with today? They certainly didn't have hair dressers, so in general their hair was left alone to grow.

You'd need pretty big population samples of hair thickness to compare. Then there is the time-machine travel to schedule to the past & back!

Of course they had hairdressers! :suspect: There have been hairdressers as long as there's been hair, probably.

[vindo]

Probably a mixture of causes... I can think of 3 possible ones but there may be more.

1. Shorter hairstyles are more common now than they were 100 years ago and it's difficult to notice thick hair when it's worn short.

2. Hair thins naturally with age, and the average age of the population keeps going up.

3. Nutrition declines as people eat more and more processed foods. Hair loss is a side effect of many health problems

that's all I can think of at the moment anyway.

4. People wpuld only have pictures of their hair taken IF it was amazing ;) according to the beauty ideals back then.