it is not surprising that countercuisine and the pursuit of a healthier and more “alternative” diet were caught up in the wake of the Me Decade and an ever more widely recognized responsibility for one’s own wellbeing. The counterculture shared many of the goals and techniques of a health- and fitness-oriented society, one that valorizes individuality and self-reliance. Alternative dietary trends thus also succumbed to commercialization and the power of capitalism; that is, they became options for broader swathes of society. A healthy diet holds out the promise of “better” body data. In 1985, its discourse pervaded by notions of self-cultivation, self-discipline, and performance, the Handelsblatt business newspaper proclaimed that “greater enhancement” of the body would generate “more added value.”48 Of course, the food industry too knows how to benefit from widespread anxieties about health. It never ceases to provide new products, with fewer carbohydrates, that are fat- and sugar-free and go easy on their consumers’ cholesterol levels. Rather than merely responding, the industry is proactive, launching research programs to conjure up the dangers and problems its products promise to remedy. The diet industry, with a turnover of approximately $150 billion worldwide in 2014 and projected sales of nearly $250 billion by 2022, would be worth a chapter in its own right.49
To sum up, in recent history eating in a way conducive to one’s fitness has become an obsession and a powerful normative precept. By no means does this signify that people have lost their passion for candy, snacks, and fast food. On the contrary, the two phenomena depend on and reinforce each other. They typify a culture and a society that distinguish between “good” and “bad” eating habits and “good” and “bad” bodies, and that make them part of the political order. The individual who eats well seems to demonstrate an ability to take responsibility for themself, their family, and the collective, and for the latter’s health and performance. They seem to know what is important and right, and to be able to invest successfully in themselves while enjoying the process. Making the effort to cook, writer Barbara Kingsolver contends, is a practice of “good citizenship.” Since the 1970s, the interest in healthy food and a matching lifestyle has increasingly emerged as an engine of distinction, between those who are considered thoughtful and aware of their health and performance, and those who cannot claim these attributes. Their ignorance can seemingly be read off their bodies. In the United States, attention is focused not only on poorer and less educated demographics, but often on African Americans. Thus – yet again and despite the successes of the civil rights movement – African Americans are portrayed as incapable of living their lives autonomously. In this context, fast food is depicted as the nadir of thoughtless consumption, as detrimental to one’s potential and abilities; according to Paul Nolte with reference to Germany, fast food is the “counterpart of trash TV.” Whether this is believed to be the result of the wrong priorities and decisions (an HD television rather than good food, Burger King instead of carrots and potatoes), or lack of financial resources, usually depends on the commentator’s political position. Either way, the distinction between healthy and unhealthy, fit and unfit has become a class distinction. This is supposed to signal people’s capacity for sensible decision making and their sense of responsibility, for their family, society, and the environment, indeed the entire planet.50
The “right amount” of exercise since the Me Decade
In the pursuit of fitness, the right amount of exercise goes hand in hand with eating right. Again, the 1970s were a decade of crucial acceleration in North America and Western Europe in this regard. In West Germany, the German Sport Association’s (Deutscher Sportbund or DSB) “Get Fit” (Trimm-Dich) campaign was launched in the spring of 1970, its declared goal being “sport for all” (see figure 3). Rather than competitive sport, the campaign promoted the very practices established in the following years in Germany under the English-language label of “fitness.” Previously, the term had barely been used in the German-speaking countries. The goal was for increased exercise to enable a greater number of people to achieve a fitter body and enjoy life more. In Germany, mass or popular sports (Breitensport) was the name given to this concept. In Austria, the term Fitsport was coined to refer to bodily practices directed solely at one’s own body and its performance (rather than scoring a goal or winning a race). Austrians also took part in fitness marches (Fitmärschen) and fitness runs (Fitläufen) inspired by the “Fit – Be in It!” (Fit-mach-mit) campaign, while keepfit trails were established in German and Swiss forests and parks.51 In German TV commercials from the middle of the decade onward, what viewers generally saw were average, middle-aged men exercising. The chubby “Karl Gustav” cycles happily through the countryside, while the voiceover explains that “The constant pedaling / keeps heart and circulation young for many years, / because to keep moving, / makes one fit and superior to others.” So, while fitness was not about improving one’s chances of winning sporting competitions, it was an attempt to outdo others in life as a whole, a life that was, more than ever, conceptualized in terms of competition and rivalry. “Mr. Oskar K.” demonstrates one facet of this superiority in another ad. Evidently, jogging is a boon not only to his health and zest for life, but also to his sex appeal. The body language of a statue of a naked woman next to the jogging track, who gazes after him and gives a thumbs-up, along with the mischievous voiceover, leaves us in no doubt about that. The fit body was now considered a beautiful, attractive body.52
Figure 3 Poster, DSB “Endurance” advertising campaign, 1975–1978
Sustained by the enthusiasm for sport that gripped West Germany after the 1972 Munich Olympics, millions of people followed the tips they received from Trimmy, the figurehead of the DSB’s “Get Fit” campaign. After just a few years, virtually every West German knew who he was, and after about a decade three-quarters of West Germans affirmed, at least in theory, that “you have to do sports to stay healthy.”53 The Federal Center for Health Education (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung) also helped spread this message. “Eat well and get fit – you need both” (“Essen und Trimmen – beides muß stimmen”) was the name of another campaign launched soon after.54
A similar tone was struck in the United States. “America Shapes Up,” announced TIME Magazine’s cover story in early November 1981. Over the preceding decade, the article contended, America had been gripped by fitness mania. The photo on the cover showed five women and men brimming with strength and joy, evidently having just finished exercising. They are holding up photos to the camera that show them playing tennis, lifting weights, cycling, doing aerobics, or jogging. Another striking aspect of the picture is how white fitness was in the early 1980s.55
TIME Magazine characterized the belief in one’s own youthfulness and magnificence as the true American dream. The near-heroic work on one’s fitness, the desire to be slim and toned, the “One! Two!” of the exercise routine, the grunting and sweating in the gym – together they symbolized the attempt to make this dream come true. Other observers in the early 1980s shared TIME’s assessment, sweepingly asserting that virtually everyone in America attached great importance to their body in everyday life, with respect to their job and as an expression of their personality. It is hard not to think of Tom Wolfe and the Me Decade.56
One of the drivers of the body and fitness mania that overtook the United States in the 1970s was running. Previously, hardly anyone thought of going for a run after work as a beneficial practice, a way of getting or staying fit. Even running marathons was the preserve of a few fanatics. At the time, the United States lacked even the infrastructure that might have facilitated a marathon as a mass event. In 1970, 126 men and one woman set off on the New York Marathon (43 percent were to be finishers), while in Boston – long the most important of all marathons in the United States – women were officially allowed to compete only in 1972. The Berlin
