Cross-posted at Jezebel.
I recently posted some data revealing the average caloric intake across the globe. Since then, I’ve learned of a new photo project by Peter Menzel and Faith D’Aluisio documenting individuals’ daily meals across many countries. While the former post gave averages, the photographs in Menzel and D’Aluisio’s new book, What I Eat, offer data points. What one person reported eating in one day. They are suggestive of the range of caloric intakes, intersecting with genetics and physical activity, that make each individual body unique.
Menzel and D’Aluisio, through Tawanda Kanhema, gave us permission to share these three examples with you; you can see a larger sample at TIME.
Saleh Abdul Fadlallah (Egypt), 3200 calories:
Caption:
Camel broker Saleh Abdul Fadlallah with his day’s worth of food at the Birqash Camel Market outside Cairo, Egypt. (From the book What I Eat: Around the World in 80 Diets.) The caloric value of his day’s worth of food on a typical day in the month of April was 3200 kcals. He is 40 years of age; 5 feet, 8 inches tall; and 165 pounds. Although virtually all of the camels that Saleh Fadlallah sells at the camel market are sold for their meat, he rarely eats this meat himself as it’s too expensive for everyday meals. Contrary to popular belief, camels’ humps don’t store water; they are a reservoir of fatty tissue that minimizes heat-trapping insulation in the rest of their bodies; the dromedary, or Arabian camel, has a single hump, while Asian camels have two. Camels are well suited for desert climes: their long legs and huge, two-toed feet with leathery pads enable them to walk easily in sand, and their eyelids, nostrils, and thick coat protect them from heat and blowing sand. These characteristics, along with their ability to eat thorny vegetation and derive sufficient moisture from tough green herbage, allow camels to survive in very inhospitable terrain.
Rick Bumgardener (Tennessee, USA), 1600 calories:
Caption:
Rick Bumgardener with his recommended daily weight-loss diet at his home in Halls, Tennessee. (From the book What I Eat: Around the World in 80 Diets.) The caloric value of his day’s worth of food in the month of February was 1,600 kcals. He is 54 years of age; 5 feet, 9 inches tall; and 468 pounds. Wheelchair-bound outside the house and suffering from a bad back and type 2 diabetes, he needs to lose 100 pounds to be eligible for weight-loss surgery. Rick tries to stick to the low-calorie diet pictured here but admits to lapses of willpower. Before an 18-year career driving a school bus, he delivered milk to stores and schools, and often traded with other delivery drivers for ice cream. School cafeteria staff would feed the charming Southerner at delivery stops, and he gained 100 pounds in one year. The prescription drug fen-phen helped him lose 100 pounds in seven months, but he gained it all back, plus more.
Curtis Newcomer (Fort Irwin, California), 4000 calories:
Caption:
Curtis Newcomer, a U.S. Army soldier, with his typical day’s worth of food at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin in California’s Mojave Desert. (From the book What I Eat: Around the World in 80 Diets.) The caloric value of his day’s worth of food in the month of September was 4,000 kcals. He is 20 years old; 6 feet, 5 inches tall; and 195 pounds. During a two-week stint before his second deployment to Iraq, he spends 12-hour shifts manning the radio communication tent (behind him). He eats his morning and evening meals in a mess hall tent, but his lunch consists of a variety of instant meals in the form of MREs (Meals, Ready-to-Eat). His least favorite is the cheese and veggie omelet. “Everybody hates that one. It’s horrible,” he says. A mile behind him, toward the base of the mountains, is Medina Wasl, a fabricated Iraqi village—one of 13 built for training exercises, with hidden video cameras and microphones linked to the base control center for performance reviews.
For more from Peter Menzel, visit our posts on family food for a week and family belongings across the globe. And also see Mark Menjivar’s You Are What You Eat.
Visit Menzel’s blog here.
Comments 84
Jack — June 7, 2011
If only they had calculated 'calories consumed' that day as well.
Rachel @ Last Res0rt — June 7, 2011
A bit lopsided to see that the guy who eats the least is also the largest... he certainly didn't get that way on only 1600 calories.
Zavtr — June 7, 2011
I am amused at the ignorance of your commenters, SocImages. Perhaps you could try being less subtle and bold "genetics" next time. I've heard that bright colors and flashing images help too, although that might be less than beneficial for your epileptic readers.
Why is China tagged?
Ricky — June 7, 2011
Anyone upset by the stereotypes being reinforced by these photographs? Seriously, the Egyptian is a camel herder? That's racist. And I guess Time believes that all Americans are either fat neck-beards or soldiers on their way to murder some Muslims and steal their oil.
Tawanda Kanhema — June 7, 2011
Well Ricky, there are at least 22 Americans in the book, all across the board from bus drivers, models, miners, college students, wind-farm engineers, dance instructors to astronauts, farmers etc. The camel broker in Egypt doesn’t stand alone either... there is a high flying young Egyptian entrepreneur as well. At least 100 people from over 30 countries were covered in this project, 80 appear in the book. Check out the full list of people featured here http://www.whatieat.org/content/content.php .
Sarah — June 7, 2011
Yay, I love these photojournalism-people-with-their-stuff type projects. Presenting data visually - beyond charts and graphs - is so powerful. Makes me want to photograph me with my food. Only trouble is, I always eat it before I can take its picture.
DG — June 7, 2011
There's no way that counter and TV tray of the day's food in Mr. Bumgardener's kitchen in 1600 calories. There's at least that much on the chicken-leg-and-pasta plate! I would guesstimate this guy's real calorie intake at more like 2600 kcal/day based on this picture.
JBee — June 8, 2011
I will answer your questions of "So why did socimages choose THOSE images? Why couldn’t they have considered OTHER images?"
The answer is in this, from the original post: "Menzel and D’Aluisio, through Tawanda Kanhema, GAVE US PERMISSION to share THESE THREE examples with you." (emphasis added by me)
So the use of these three photos, it would seem, is not malicious or from any bias. It is simply that Sociimages was given permission to use these three photos. I'll admit though, there still is the possibility that the blog specifically asked to use these three photos, instead of asking "which photos can I use on my blog?" So there still is the possibility that these photos were specifically chosen, and if so then I would find be interested to know why they were chosen
I did find it interesting that the photo and caption demonstrated that, contrary to what a person could assume, the biggest person represented in the Time pictures does not actually have the highest calorie consumption.
I don't believe that SociImages would post the image under any bias because they "knew" that it would generate negative hateful comments towards fat people. As far as I have seen, SociImages makes a concious effort to not insult or marginalize any group.
Are you saying they should have NOT posted the picture of the large man, because they should have known negative commentary would arise? I believe the whole idea of this blog is to incite debate, commentary, and discussion, and a byproduct of that is that hateful comments almost always tends to arise, just because some people (especially on the internet) tend to say hateful mean things. I don't think they should not post something because it has some potential to generate negative comments.
Aoirthoir — June 8, 2011
---
"I will answer your questions of "So why did socimages choose THOSE images? Why couldn't they have considered OTHER images?"
The answer is in this, from the original post: "Menzel and DAluisio, through Tawanda Kanhema, GAVE US PERMISSION to share THESE THREE examples with you." (emphasis added by me)"
---
So they just innocently accepted the images and didn't think about the impact? I find that hard to believe.
"So the use of these three photos, it would seem, is not malicious or from any bias."
INTENT doesn't matter and you should know that by now. They can claim no malintent, but the facts are that juxtapositioning images like this send a clear signal.
"It is simply that Sociimages was given permission to use these three photos. I'll admit though, there still is the possibility that the blog specifically asked to use these three photos, instead of asking "which photos can I use on my blog?" So there still is the possibility that these photos were specifically chosen, and if so then I would find be interested to know why they were chosen"
Let's presume the images they were "offered" were not of men. Instead they were of purportedly attractive women in slinky bikinis lounging around some millionaire. Would they have just used those images without so much as a comment? Would they have asked for other pictures? But, fat men don't matter. It is a fact I've become WELL aware of even in the fat-hate fighting groups.
"I did find it interesting that the photo and caption demonstrated that, contrary to what a person could assume, the biggest person represented in the Time pictures does not actually have the highest calorie consumption."
Being fat, I can tell you I knew EXACTLY what people were going to say to that. And guess what, I was right. They immediately questioned the validity of the claim of the number of calories the man ate. He had to be lying. Scroll up and down and read the comments. The fact that he ate lower calories isn't the issue. The issue is the fat haters that simply believe folks like he and I are lying when we speak about our caloric intake. Socimages knows this kind of conversation goes on and they posted the image without so much as a discussion.
"I don't believe that SociImages would post the image under any bias because they "knew" that it would generate negative hateful comments towards fat people. As far as I have seen, SociImages makes a concious effort to not insult or marginalize any group."
I disagreely strongly. The ableist language and fat hate alone that goes un-addressed on this site is appalling. It leaves one with no choice but ti question their bias and motives.
"Are you saying they should have NOT posted the picture of the large man, because they should have known negative commentary would arise?"
Did you read what I said? An image of a beautiful person is NOT the issue and you know it. I brought up several issues which you ignore including but not limited to:
1. Posting stereotypical photos out of the HUNDREDS available.
2. Sandwhiching a purportedly "fat" man between two purportedly "healthy" men. The ORDER here is a SIGNIFICANT demonstration of bias.
3. Choosing images DELIBERATELY wherein the two "thinner" persons consume fewer calories than the "fat" man.
4. NO discussion of context.
5. NO discussion of avoiding fat hate.
6. NO discussion of how one can INDEED consume fewer calories than others and be larger.
7. KNOWING that fat hate discussions WOULD DEFINITELY ENSUE and NO consideration of how that would hurt a significant portion of our population.
8. IGNORING the fact that all of us that are "OBESE" magically became obese OVERNIGHT when they changed the definition of obese.
9. NO discussion about how being [so-called] overweight, fat or obese is actually GOOD.
10. NO discussion that thin are OFTEN less healthy than the "fat".
This is a small list. What matters is how the juxtapositioning makes people FEEL. And socimages should have considered that before just ignoring us.
"I believe the whole idea of this blog is to incite debate, commentary, and discussion, and a byproduct of that is that hateful comments almost always tends to arise,"
Really? I run some groups and we don't have hateful statements from posters and commenters.
"just because some people (especially on the internet) tend to say hateful mean things. I don't think they should not post something because it has some potential to generate negative comments."
Uh huh. Yet the exact opposite is said by them in many of the things they post. But, when it comes to ableism and fat hate...well "those" people don't matter. So we don't have to consider their feelings, even those we demand everyone else consider feelings of people WE deem as worthy.
Anonymous — June 8, 2011
On the times website the guy from the 1600 calories says he admits to eating a lot more on other days....
Chorda — June 8, 2011
Oh for crying out loud. Here: I, as an Egyptian-American and daughter of Egyptian immigrants, am in no way offended by the image of an Egyptian camel herder.
If someone from Egypt wants to come in and complain about it, fine. We can have a serious discussion about it then. People who are not Egyptian who are policing a stereotype that doesn't exist can kindly stop, because you're being insultingly paternalistic. It is your own bigotry you put on display by worrying about this. No one worries about a New Zealander who herds sheep. It's only by othering the Egyptian and exoticizing the herding of camels that you think his perfectly ordinary job is somehow offensive.
Ricky — June 8, 2011
C'mon People, the images at Time are a parade of offensive stereotypes. Here are the ones that I believe are problematic and reasons why:
For the Americans we have four images.
Two of them are military; a soldier and a war vet. That is a blatant stereotype of Americans as militaristic, no other nation's soldiers are shown.
One is a mall staffer. That re-enforces the stereotype that Americans are materialistic, again no other country's malls are shown even though just about every country in the world has malls. And look at the name of the mall, Mall of America, yeah just coincidence I'm sure. Right.
Then we have the Candidate for Obesity surgery. I don't think this one even needs any explanation it clearly references the stereotype of Americans as being over-weight. No other obese people were shown in the series.
The Model/Student represents the stereotype that American women are shallow and bit slutty. I am not saying that Mariel is shallow and slutty, only that she is clearly presented in a way that objectifies her as a sexual object.
The next imagine is almost the opposite, but also problematic. The Yemeni home maker in the burka. Most Muslims do not wear burkas, and those that do usually only wear them outside of the home, so why was this image of a homemaker wearing a burka inside the home chosen? It is because it is the most obvious stereotype of a Yemeni woman possible?
Back to the other end of the spectrum, the Namibian pastoralist is practically naked, but not in a sexual way. The image is problematic though because it represents a stereotype of Namibian or sub-Saharan Africans as primitives. I know that they are not primitive, and so do you, but it is the stereotype that exists. Not to mention the fact that the majority Namibians do not live that way, most of them live in manner similar to people in just about every other county, so why was this particular image chosen?
We have already discussed the Egyptian camel broker, but really, no one else sees an issue with that? I guess we should just be happy that he wasn't a camel jockey. Right?
I guess we should also be glad that the shepherd was Spanish instead of, as CHORDA suggest, a New Zealander. LOL Nice job CHORDA.
Lastly, the Vietnamese rice farmer, really? Considering the modern technological economies of Asia, the image chosen is of a rice farmer? At least he is not smoking Opium, er, that is not Opium he is smoking is it?
So if these are the images that were chosen to be shown, I shudder to think which ones were rejected. Did they have one of the Jewish banker, or the Mexican migrant who just happens to steal hubcaps? Holy hell.
Roving Thundercloud — June 8, 2011
The sad thing to me is that Mr. Bumgardner has resorted to risky methods to lose weight--taking fen-phen and gastric bypass. With the drug, as is typical of most weight loss, he gained it back and more.
The fact is, contrary to all claims, science doesn't know how to make people thin. If science did know how to make people thin, everyone would be thin. Heavy people take risks like this all the time.
If science "journalism" wanted to be helpful and truthful, we'd hear about how the vast majority of those who succeed in losing weight wind up gaining it all back, and more. But most people want to believe that they are thin because they're virtuous and right, and others are fat because they're defective and wrong.
Tawanda Kanhema — June 8, 2011
The message most people seem to be missing is that What I Eat is about food and comparisons – The people profiled in the book were chosen based on their lifestyle, environment and how it affects their food choices and the resultant impact of those factors on their health.
The pastoralist in Namibia (one of a few people who still live that way and part of a traditional population in decline) is contrasted with a diamond polisher in Namibia who migrated to the city and has changed her food choices (more processed) and then with a Maasai herder in a much drier part of Africa in Kenya who eats only 800 calories due to a severe drought.
Compare that to a Spanish sheep-herder who has the benefit of a good climate, advanced farming methods and access to capital, a Tibetan nomadic herder who lives at high altitude in the Tibetan Plateau.
There are at least 25 people in the book directly involved in the production and retail of food – 13 farmers from 6 continents (from both sides of the sustainable and commodity farming divide), 2 bakers, 4 fishermen (Amazon – Brazil, Maine – USA, Iceland, Greenland) butchers, brewers and restaurant chefs – A good part of the global food chain from earth to table.
There are a lot more factors to how and what we eat than just race and social status and to try and strip everything to those two factors prevents us from seeing the broader picture of how our food choices have changed over the decades, why and what they might look like in the future.
To get a more complete understanding, it would be good to read the book with all 80 peoples' diets from 30 countries. There are personal stories, statistics, and 7 brilliant essays that shed a lot of light on the subject of calories and nutrition worldwide.
About Rick - He is happy to share his story. He confronted his problem, with the support of his family, and overcame the challenges. He received the surgery, is recovering at home and looks forward to driving again.
I hope that we can find civility in our differences.
Aoirthoir — June 8, 2011
"...you realize that Roving Thundercloud is basically in agreement with you, right?"
You mean Roving Thundercloud is in agreement with me when such fat-hate statements were spewed like: "If science did know how to make people thin, everyone would be thin" and such fat-othering statements like this were made: "Heavy people take risks like this all the time'?
You'll pardon me, (or not I really don't care) if I strongly disagree with you that fat-hate and fat-othering are not "basically in agreement with me"
"Ze's not saying that "fat is bad, unhealthy, disgusting" but is instead saying that (thin) people like to pretend it is, and that they are virtuous for having less of it."
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Except of course if science knew how to make us all thin, we would all be thin.
"Which is pretty standard Fat Acceptance stuff, I think, and doesn't warrant you yelling."
I didn't yell. I've had to say this a dozen times but as usual my disabilities are being disappeared by you and others. I am NOT yelling. My reading VISION has DETERIATED over the last couple of years. Therefore it is REALLY DIFFICULT for me to read italics. So I capitalize words that I wish to emphasize.
This is not yelling, this is not attacking. If it ain't about you, don't make it about you. And my vision problems AIN'T about you.
"I mean, c'mon:
"
Yeah I said so. SO he gained the weight back. SO? Why is HIS weight any of YOUR d'mned bees wax?
"So" because the man obviously wanted to lose weight but was not given the means to do so; instead he spent money on dangerous crap that didn't help him."
HE gets to choose his risks, not me or you. You don't get to rename my decisions "dangerous crap". I had my teeth pulled, they run a certain risk. That risk is not "crap". I am an adult and I evaluated the risk and decided it was NOT crap. But, that's my teeth and that's the one body modification most of society thinks is ok...but if you decide the modification we want to make is too dangerous by your standards, well it's "crap". Nice way to dismiss a person's personal choices.
"That's terrible no matter what his weight or health are like -- "
The only one that gets to decide it is terrible is the person going through it. I will leave that up to him. What's DEFINITELY terrible is people thinking other people's lives are their business.
"which I think you and Thundercloud agree is a clear failure of medicine"
No I don't think it is a clear failure of medicine. Fact is each of us is different. Some medical procedures accomplish the goal of the person seeking the procedure. The very same procedure could fail to meet the goal of another person who undergoes the procedure. That's not a failure, that's just a result of the fact that all of our body's are different.
If any individual feels medical science has failed them, that's their decision. I don't decide for them, and neither should you.
"and are society to treat fat people well."
Kind of like how society decides for us whether we fat people should be happy or not with medical procedures we have undergone?
"But you're reading it uncharitably (understandable but not necessary, I think.)"
I am the sole person who decides if I read it uncharitably. You cannot practice fat-hate by telling me all people would be THIN if science only just knew how. That's a COMPLETE erasure of those of us who have CHOSEN to be fat. Your science could invent a thin-ray-gun tomorrow and I would refuse to be zapped by it. I WANTED to be fat. I LOVE my fat belly. I LOVE hugging it, stroking it, talking with it. YES I DO. So yeah, I read as "uncharitably" anyone that tells me we fat people would definitely be thin "if only"...
I also read as uncharitably when someone practices fat-othering by telling me heavy people take risks all the time. Ah so light people don't take risks all the time? That is blatant othering, erasure and dismissal of me and other fat people. It says clearly, "you are different from us," when we're exactly the same as you. It also ignores the fact that fat is not a determinant of health as so many believe. So no, WE aren't the ones that keep talking the risks. We are the ones that keep enjoying our lives and wish you would just back off and let us.
The hate speech in these comments is unbelievable...
Aoirthoir — June 9, 2011
"We're very much on the same page! And now that I'm not misreading your all-caps words I'm certainly reading YOUR comments more charitably myself. I love to emphasize lots of words myself, when writing, but prefer italics. :)"
As we both know you don't need any ok from me to decide how you type. I wish more people were like that.
"I think we can agree to disagree (even though I sort of hate that term) on some of this."
Which is another way of saying let us each live as we will.
"I look at medical science from a very critical perspective, because I want to do medical research for a living and so I'm always looking at "how can we do better?" "
Interesting. I used to be a test subject volunteer. Keep in touch with me and let me know how your experiences go. Let me know the moment someone first brings up the "toe" study or the "heart stopping" study.
"But I've also benefited hugely from it myself -- I understand that often one has to try lots of different things on different bodies because it was something like antidepressant brand number 5 that finally got me off the living room couch! :p"
Yup. I've benefited to, as mentioned having most of my teeth removed. The two weekends it happened were some of the happiest days of my life. Dental science is awesome.
"So I suppose I should say, rather than "failure", that anything less than medical PERFECTION is a gap in care I would like to fill."
Alright:D
" And maybe it was perfection for him; I'd be happy to hear from this man that his experience was exactly as he wanted it, and I won't blithely say "oh I'm SURE it was not, sir!""
That's pretty much what I am talking about. A lot of folks will look at my lack of teeth and feel sorry for me, some have so stated. WHY? my mouth feels the most comfortable it has ever felt. Other than keeping my sharpies, I'd be fine if I had none.
"But I would cautiously generalize that a medication taken for weight loss that did not result in that weight loss is at least a "gap" in our science. I personally default towards minimal (but perfectly efficient) treatment as the ideal, so any drug or action one takes that doesn't help effectively is a waste in my book."
Well it would be nice if we always got what we wanted first time out. Since life isn't that way I don't expect medical science to be that way. But we are getting more adept year by year.
"And yeah, that's a totally strict and rather arbitrary (and honestly unachievable) standard so I won't expect you to share it! And if any doctors are reading this they are probably exasperated as all hell at me, too. :p"
There is nothing wrong with WANTING that. I want it too. I want grown organs for us, longer life spans, and more. We're getting there with time. I just see a difference in wanting something and viewing another person's procedure as a failure unless they so see it that way. It would be a tremendous boost to self esteem if we stopped defining others' experiences for them.
"In my earlier comment I very unfairly switch between describing an ideal world (in which all medicine works perfectly!) and the real world (in which fat bodies receive a lot of hate.) So yes, he shouldn't be "brave" just to appear in a photo and discuss his health problems but I still admire him for it "
Now see how your comment has moved from negative, hinting at a bad feeling, to positive? I admire you for that. I admire a beautiful artist's work without thinking it took bravery to create (unless they say it did). I admire him because he is a beautiful human being. Fat men are shamed worst of all. It is taboo to shame fat men, but I see fat women and even fat-activists try to shame us all of the time. I have more than a few times pointed out the hypocrisy in saying fat women are beautiful but we fat men are ...fill in the blank.
"-- I don't receive the same kind of stigma for mental illness but I still have to work myself up to discussing what medications and treatments I use. So if I were him, this photoshoot would require a lot of bravery! "
And if you did so, and even now talking about it, if you say it took bravery then I accept it. Your bravery in that case and this should be lauded. It shows though that we shouldn't interpret others feelings based on our own.
"(He's welcome to be a fearless badass devil-may-care dude, and not give a damn what the world thinks, but I'm gonna admire him anyways. Pish to his badass ol' self-determination. ^^)"
I agree. I don't know where in the spectrum he exists. That's for him to say. And for him to be.
"I'm truly glad you remind me about my assumptions even if I maybe won't change them immediately... "
Thank you. And I know we all have assumptions. I assume for instance that you humans must really really want to worship me or something cause, why would you be on my planet if you didn't? But we have to be careful not to confuse our assumptions (or in my case DCDs, (deliberately crafted delusions) ) with other persons' experiences. :D
"it's good practice for a researcher to NEVER assume, or at least to know exactly when she does so. "
Yup. But too many don't do that. Read socimages more and you will notice that the authors of the articles make all sorts of assumptions about other people (so do commenters), without FACT one. When people make these kinds of automatically negative assumptions ALL of the time, with EACH article, that is assuming only the worst in people all of the time, it makes me wonder, just what kind of people they are themselves.
"So sure, I'm happy to assume less about his motives and intentions (even if my assumptions are fairly complimentary that doesn't make them correct) -- "
More should hold this view. Thank you!
"but if you start saying that darn overused "ASSuming makes an ASS out of U and ME!" thing I swear will reach through this laptop screen and strangle you~! >:D"
What makes an ASS out of YOU and ME is Ice Cream. Or was it Coconut Sprinkles? I forget. At the next meeting of The Temple of Yes We Can Has No Bananas, I will check the scriptures and let you know.
"
Lies! You are clearly plotting my doom, mad-scientist style from your lair. And I respect that. ;D""
:D Now why cant all of these conversations just end up this way? I cannot tell you how many times I have told me I am not yelling I am emphasizing because of my bad vision and yet still they then say again I'm just yelling, I'm an angry little man (followed by I am a huge fat man...so the contradiction eh?) and that I'm being this or that or thinking this or that or feeling this or that. If more just took each other at our words, well these conversations would end in UNDERSTANDING.
Kind Regards
Aoirthoir
Body of Knowledge | I Came to Run — June 11, 2011
[...] blog, and in any given week they do like 1,000,000 posts that I could link to, but I found this one on a new book entitled What I Eat to be compelling. If you’re not already familiar with the [...]