7 ms·

> Even those in “light” labor roles consumed 3.2k calories daily. Examples of such jobs included toothbrush filler, rotary machine operator, and polisher. While

> Even those in “light” labor roles consumed 3.2k calories daily. Examples of such jobs included toothbrush filler, rotary machine operator, and polisher. While these tasks may not be as physically undemanding as sitting at a computer, they are not much more demanding. I find it very difficult to believe that sitting in an air-conditioned office chair is close to comparable to the conditions of even 'light' factory work in the 1950s.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
Eh, maybe comparable to standing at an office desk?
- Kirby64 3y ago
  Probably closer, but I still doubt it. Factory work was notoriously brutal. Figures for calories burnt from sitting vs. standing varies between 20 and 80 cal/hour. 80cal/hr would be substanial over a workday (800cal, assuming factory work was 10 hour days in the 50s...), but 20 would not... If we assume it's ~50cal/hr, standing alone could add up to 500cal difference for a 10 hour day, not even including additional physical exercise from the job itself. Add to this the amount of walking that was likely substanially more common in the 50s, and it sure seems like you could chalk up a 1000+ cal difference pretty quickly.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  I just read the actual study quoted just to get an idea of what they're claiming, and this further seems to indicate that 'light' labor was anything but... > 4. The average daily calorie intake of men doing light work was about 600 Cal./day less than that of men doing heavy work. The previous failure to differentiate between intakes was thus not confirmed. The estimated calorie expenditure per minute, excluding what was require for basal metabolism, was on an average 2-2 Cal. for light work, 2-7 for light to medium work, 2.6 for medium to medium heavy work and 3-8 for heavy work. 2.2cal/min would equate to 1320cal additional burned for a 10 hour day! That's clearly far, far above typical calories used in an office job.
  - Retric 3y ago
    A 150 lb person uses 100 calories per hour at their desk, but people get up quite often to go to meetings etc. It could easily be 1150 vs 1320 calories here a meaningful difference, until you consider differences in body weight = higher calorie expenditure.
blakesterz 3y ago
The following are examples of the grading of the job: Light: filler (tooth brushes), rotary-machine operator, polisher. What was a filler of tooth brushes? I assume that was just someone who made tooth brushes? Was that really a popular job? Google is totally failing me on that.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > I assume that was just someone who made tooth brushes? Yes. > Was that really a popular job? No, but that's not the point. If you looked up census record occupations of the era, you wouldn't find a lot of "rotary-machine operator" or "polisher" either. It's one example of an assembly task that was part of manufacturing at the time.
Retric 3y ago
Air conditioning can increase metabolic rate to keep you warm, it’s mostly heating that reduces energy expenditure and 1950’s factories had heat. A 150lb office worker at their desk is burning ~100 calories an hour, but people only spend about 70% of their time act their desks instead moving around a fair bit over the workday. Step counters end up counting a surprising amount of activity on average. What I think the article is missing is people doing light factory work in 1928/9 generally lacked cars. People just walked far more in their non working life.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  I'd need a citation on 100cal/hr for sitting at a desk. Are you removing BMR from that calculation? That would imply people are spending 800cal/day on JUST sitting during a workday (no other movement, no BMR, no walking, etc). If you extend this to a whole day, you would be burning 1600cal/day from sitting ... without even counting BMR which is ~1200-1600 or more. Numbers I've seen is that sitting is much closer to 10-20cal/hr from sitting (vs. literally asleep).
  - Retric 3y ago
    Most sources include BMR in these figures. I found several secondary sources for the 100/hour figure at 150lb, but no primary sources. One study had lying down while awake at 86 calories per hour so typing/using a mouse/etc would need to be 15c/h to hit 100 which seems likely. But again that's excluding time spent getting up and moving around at the office which adds up. There was also outliers like: *But the National Institutes of Health tells us that in an hour, the average 170 lb. person burns: 134 calories sitting 206 calories standing 296 calories walking at a moderate pace
    - Kirby64 3y ago
      Right, and the 1950s study was measuring ~132cal/hr above BMR for their 'light' work. So, clearly, if someone burns ~100cal/hr (including BMR) for sitting in an office, then the 'light' work is much, much, much more strenous regardless of what BMR is.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

Eh, maybe comparable to standing at an office desk?

Kirby64 3y ago
Probably closer, but I still doubt it. Factory work was notoriously brutal. Figures for calories burnt from sitting vs. standing varies between 20 and 80 cal/hour. 80cal/hr would be substanial over a workday (800cal, assuming factory work was 10 hour days in the 50s...), but 20 would not... If we assume it's ~50cal/hr, standing alone could add up to 500cal difference for a 10 hour day, not even including additional physical exercise from the job itself. Add to this the amount of walking that was likely substanially more common in the 50s, and it sure seems like you could chalk up a 1000+ cal difference pretty quickly.
Kirby64 3y ago
I just read the actual study quoted just to get an idea of what they're claiming, and this further seems to indicate that 'light' labor was anything but... > 4. The average daily calorie intake of men doing light work was about 600 Cal./day less than that of men doing heavy work. The previous failure to differentiate between intakes was thus not confirmed. The estimated calorie expenditure per minute, excluding what was require for basal metabolism, was on an average 2-2 Cal. for light work, 2-7 for light to medium work, 2.6 for medium to medium heavy work and 3-8 for heavy work. 2.2cal/min would equate to 1320cal additional burned for a 10 hour day! That's clearly far, far above typical calories used in an office job.
- Retric 3y ago
  A 150 lb person uses 100 calories per hour at their desk, but people get up quite often to go to meetings etc. It could easily be 1150 vs 1320 calories here a meaningful difference, until you consider differences in body weight = higher calorie expenditure.

blakesterz 3y ago

The following are examples of the grading of the job: Light: filler (tooth brushes), rotary-machine operator, polisher. What was a filler of tooth brushes? I assume that was just someone who made tooth brushes? Was that really a popular job? Google is totally failing me on that.

drewcoo 3y ago
> I assume that was just someone who made tooth brushes? Yes. > Was that really a popular job? No, but that's not the point. If you looked up census record occupations of the era, you wouldn't find a lot of "rotary-machine operator" or "polisher" either. It's one example of an assembly task that was part of manufacturing at the time.

Retric 3y ago

Air conditioning can increase metabolic rate to keep you warm, it’s mostly heating that reduces energy expenditure and 1950’s factories had heat. A 150lb office worker at their desk is burning ~100 calories an hour, but people only spend about 70% of their time act their desks instead moving around a fair bit over the workday. Step counters end up counting a surprising amount of activity on average. What I think the article is missing is people doing light factory work in 1928/9 generally lacked cars. People just walked far more in their non working life.

Kirby64 3y ago
I'd need a citation on 100cal/hr for sitting at a desk. Are you removing BMR from that calculation? That would imply people are spending 800cal/day on JUST sitting during a workday (no other movement, no BMR, no walking, etc). If you extend this to a whole day, you would be burning 1600cal/day from sitting ... without even counting BMR which is ~1200-1600 or more. Numbers I've seen is that sitting is much closer to 10-20cal/hr from sitting (vs. literally asleep).
- Retric 3y ago
  Most sources include BMR in these figures. I found several secondary sources for the 100/hour figure at 150lb, but no primary sources. One study had lying down while awake at 86 calories per hour so typing/using a mouse/etc would need to be 15c/h to hit 100 which seems likely. But again that's excluding time spent getting up and moving around at the office which adds up. There was also outliers like: *But the National Institutes of Health tells us that in an hour, the average 170 lb. person burns: 134 calories sitting 206 calories standing 296 calories walking at a moderate pace
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Right, and the 1950s study was measuring ~132cal/hr above BMR for their 'light' work. So, clearly, if someone burns ~100cal/hr (including BMR) for sitting in an office, then the 'light' work is much, much, much more strenous regardless of what BMR is.