In the 1950s, a 12 ounce can of soda was considered “king-size,” and included two full servings:
In 2010, we consider 20 ounces of soda to be the “small” size drink:
Even adjusting for the ice in the fountain drinks, the small in 2010 is equivalent to the king-size from 1950.
I have to admit that I drink approximately 167 ounces of Diet Coke a day, so I’m not sure how people got by on only one king-sized 12 ounce can at a time.
Has our fluid-intake needs changed or is this a sign of that mostly forgotten vice, gluttony?
(Via: Sociological Images)
October 26th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
Gluttony
167 oz???
I’m speechless (technically, wordless).
October 26th, 2010 | 12:17 pm
I remember when you could get single-serve refillable glass bottles of soda from the distributor — I think they were six ounces. MAYBE eight. Definitely not twelve.
And I’m not THAT old — this would have been the 70′s. My grandmother used to keep her fridge stocked with them and my teenage brothers would have ONE (each) after coming in from doing yardwork for her.
It’s gluttony. I do think we’re more aware of our fluid intake needs, and that’s good, but that doesn’t explain 32 ounces of sugar water to wash down your fish n chips.
October 26th, 2010 | 12:23 pm
I drank a lot more pop until I changed the way I thought about it.
Pop sweetened with corn syrup is drinkable if you’re used to it, but there’s something about the texture of it that tends to require the drinker to drink a lot in order to feel refreshed. That, I think, is why we’re seeing such an explosion in serving sizes. Recently, I’ve been buying craft-brewed root beers that are sweetened with cane syrup. Some of them are delicious (Goose Island Breweries makes a wonderful one, as does a company called Virgil’s), and 12 ounces of one fills me up, tastes like a treat, and leaves me eager to drink water later in the day.
Also, Nutrasweet is poison. In large quantities, it’s a neurotoxin. I equate a heavy Aspratame habit with a causal smoking habit in terms of damage done, although that’s strictly a hunch.
October 26th, 2010 | 1:07 pm
Soda (or “coke” if you’re from Texas like I am) is a treat…it’s not supposed to be a substitute for water, milk, juice, etc… I also can remember the 6 & 8 oz bottles. In fact, I still buy the bottles whenever I see them (and the “90 calorie cans”. When I have a coke, I have a coke…it’s a treat not a staple.
Diet sodas, for me anyway, are an invitation to a contraceptive mentality: “Gimme the fiz and the flavor, never mind the consequences (calories).” So I stopped drinking them in 2006. They used to be for people who couldn’t tolerate sugar, like diabetics. They’re certainly not for me!
I am also firmly convinced, with no scientific proof mind you, that artificial sweeteners aren’t healthy. I think years from now, our grandkids will be asking us, “Granpa, why did people drink that stuff?”
October 26th, 2010 | 4:36 pm
Here’s one theory. People apparently don’t have a very good sense of portion–whatever we’re served we think is what we’re supposed to consume. Somewhere along the line someone figured out that people will pay twice as much or more for a single double sized serving even though they wouldn’t pay the same amount for two regular sized portions. Hence the genius of ‘supersizing’–people feel like gluttons ordering two servings of fries, but they’ll happily order one huge serving of fries for a similar price. And of course more fries (or soda) bought equals more profit.
Gluttony? No. Clever if cynical and destructive marketing.
October 26th, 2010 | 7:58 pm
I’ve been taken aback by how much alcohol Americans and Europeans consumed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially children. I suppose pop is a lesser weevil.
October 26th, 2010 | 8:14 pm
I bet that the 40 ounce tub pictured above isn’t the biggest you can buy nowadays. Will the drink holders in the Escalade hold those big 40 ounce cups?
I certainly remember a time when adults were happy with a small sandwich and a seven ounce coke for lunch. And a cigarette.
October 26th, 2010 | 11:26 pm
“Gluttony? No. Clever if cynical and destructive marketing.”
The marketing wouldn’t work if people were conscientious about how they used their money and what they consumed. So it’s not either gluttony or cynical marketing, it’s cynical marketing in the context of a gluttonous culture.
October 26th, 2010 | 11:47 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Carol Dunn, DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: Would You Like a Bucket of Soda With Your Order?: In the 1950s, a 12 ounce can of soda was considered “king-s… http://bit.ly/bUoRDW #tcot [...]
October 27th, 2010 | 8:59 am
It seems undeniable that there has been an increase in appetites. Coffee servings are much, much larger today than a couple of generations ago when the standard was the tea cup.
But maybe there is something else at play, an irrepressible bigger-is-better expansiveness in the American imagination. While the recession put the squeeze on the market for McMansions and SUVs, I doubt it will stop the trend in the long run. GM once downsized its land barges in response to the popularity of Japanese imports, but eventually found its way to building giants again. And the size of import cars grew in response to U.S. desires. Consider the Honda Civic of today verses the Civic of the 70s.
I see no problem with corporation-bashing, although it seems just a little too convenient. But to have any hope of effectively restraining our national impulse to overindulge, it’s probably necessary to address both sides–the personal and the corporate.
October 27th, 2010 | 4:29 pm
A: Soft drinks descended from patent medicines. Coke, Moxie, Dr. Pepper were “nerve tonics,” marketed rather as 5-hr energy drinks are now. Medicines should come in smaller doses than beverages in our imagination. The expansion was gradual.
B: Adding to the volume costs the vendor little but creates an impression of abundance. The vendor has packaging, distribution, support, and employee costs for each serving – the marginal cost of adding some more sugared syrup is minor.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact