
100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow. - yummyfajitas
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/15/americas-obesity-epidemic-bringing-sideshow-freaks-into-the-discussion/
======
mhb
From: <http://men-in-full.livejournal.com/111937.html> referring to additional
photos there:

 _The image was taken by a photographer probably during the 1890s-1910 era.
The cabinet photo measures approx. 4" x 6". It pictures a super view of a
young man and woman, but both of a very large size! The back of the photo read
"Chauncey Morlan, Age 25, Wt 602, Wife age 22, Wt 526". A quick "google"
search revealed that they were a circus side show attraction of some type. The
photographer turned out to be famous circus / sideshow / freak photographer
Wendt of Boonton NJ. He was famous for his rare images of midgets, giants,
fatmen, sword swallowers, jugglers and bearded ladies!

Chauncy Royse Morlan and Annie Bell were married in 1892 at Huber's Museum in
New York. Afterward the couple toured with the Barnum & Bailey Circus in
Europe. Upon returning to the US, they continued to travel as the fattest
married couple in the world "with a combined weight of 912 pounds". During the
off season the Morlans returned to their home in Indianapolis, Indiana -
Chauncy's home state. Annie would die at age 31, and Chauncey at age 43._

~~~
seiha
Now that's one creepy livejournal community.

~~~
davi
I don't think it's creepy, at least not after giving it a brief read. It's
interesting, and everyone is being very polite and well spoken with one
another, and talking about what they're interested in. We should do as well.
(I upmodded you anyway because your comment made me go look.)

------
ErrantX
I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e.
many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy -
figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)

~~~
gaius
One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted
for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular,
lean, brave, intelligent, etc.

Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food),
weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat
because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they
avoid risk at any cost, dumb so they just repeat procedures that are known to
work, and so on.

~~~
DrSprout
You're at least partially confusing individual survivability with group
survivability. Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual, is
ultimately so problematic for the group that it will result in everyone's
death.

Dumbly repeating procedures that are known to work without analysis will not
only cause stagnation, but also likely cause industrial and environmental
collapse unless a system is so tightly controlled that it is impossible for
any procedure to lose effectiveness. And unless technological improvement is
impossible, this is clearly a suboptimal survival strategy, as survivability
may not be improved.

~~~
gort
"Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual"

If this were actually true then evolution would go ahead and make everyone
absolutely cowardly. Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an
individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits
reproduce more. Nothing stops evolution going down paths that are bad for the
species.

(Of course, if it gets so bad that the species goes extinct then we simply
won't see that species any more. But nothing prevents this from happening.)

It isn't actually true though: risks have their rewards.

~~~
jerf
You need to spend some more time with evolutionary theory. Populations do
indeed evolve along with individuals. You own message explains why; there are
selection pressures at the population level as well. See also animals that are
always found in communities, like ants or humans. It's not either/or. It never
is with evolutionary theory.

~~~
gort
"Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals"

Individuals don't evolve at all. Evolution is changes in gene frequency over
time.

What I think you're trying to talk about is macroevolution, where species that
happen to have certain traits survive longer than other species. Sure, this
sort of thing happens. But I was responding to the claim that "absolute
cowardice [is] beneficial to an individual" and noting what would happen to
the level of cowardice in a population if that were actually true.

~~~
btilly
What it looks like you're not paying sufficient attention to is that selection
happens at the level of the gene, not the level of the individual.

It is absolutely not beneficial to the individual to put energy out to try to
have sex, put energy into offspring, or to take risks for others. However all
of those behaviors have tended to be beneficial for the genes that the
individual has because the others who are helped are likely to have the genes
producing that behavior. Therefore all of those behaviors have evolved
notwithstanding the fact that they are inconvenient for individuals with those
genes.

~~~
erikpukinskis
The truth is that the truth you allude to is only one of many truths, and I
consider it my duty as a mansplainer to point out that there are other truths
you failed to incorporate into your paragraph in such a way that makes me feel
as if I have a bigger and more complete collection of truths because then I
won't feel so bad that my pants make me feel ugly.

------
jdminhbg
Some clarifying comments on the link to the same story at marginalrevolution
([http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04...](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04/freakonomics.html#comments)):

"It says in the linked page that Morgan weighed as much as 875 pounds. I think
that's still a bit unusual even today."

Apparently the photo is him at a younger, slimmer point.

~~~
chaosmachine
I imagine that number was a generous estimate given by the guys selling
tickets.

~~~
jdminhbg
I don't doubt it. But the guy in the photo doesn't look to even be half that.

------
dkimball
So, 100 years ago, this kind of weight was sideshow-worthy (and remember the
other things one would see in a circus sideshow...); today, it wouldn't turn
heads on a subway.

However: the US has become _more_ health-conscious in the past 100 years, not
less. We must have something wrong, if concern for exercise and good nutrition
goes hand-in-hand with this kind of obesity.

I think this is due, at least in part, to the drastic reduction of fat
consumption relative to carbohydrates; but changes in lifestyle and in modes
of entertainment must have something to do with it, too. No one mindlessly
eats high-carbohydrate foods while playing poker, after all...

The increase in number of sedentary jobs relative to others probably has a
role, too, but it must not be a very major factor on its own; otherwise, there
would have been as much obesity among white-collar workers then as there is
among everyone today.

There are things that man was not meant to know: not the coordinates of
Cthulhu's tomb in the watery depths and the nature of spells to manipulate the
Great Old Ones, but the unholy and arcane arts of transistors, CRTs, and low-
fat yogurt.

[Edit: typo.]

~~~
david927
The US has become more health-conscious but also, in the last 50 years, has
began to be exploited by manufacturers. Note, this person would be shocking
still in Europe.

Chemicals and corn by-products are stuffed everywhere in American products.
Even in crazy places like maple syrup and ketchup. I went back to the States
at Christmas and we went to an upscale grocery store, yet my wife couldn't
find almost anything (yogurt, etc.) that wasn't processed and littered with
crap to make it "taste better" and save the producers money. I'm sorry but
there is _nothing_ in yogurt that needs corn.

The Heinz ketchup here in the Czech Republic tastes _identical_ to the one in
the States, but without any serious additives and no corn products at all.
People don't eat fast food and they use natural ingredients. You can't sell GM
foods here; it's not allowed.

The obesity in the U.S. is staggering, and what's worse, no one cares enough
to force the companies producing it to shape up and stop getting their profit
from poisoning their fellow man.

~~~
nollidge
You're confusing a few separate issues:

1) Cheap, high-yield corn. Upside: cheap carbs. Downside: Probably
unsustainable. Crops require crazy chemical fertizilers to support the
increased yields. Because it's cheap, people want to use corn for all kinds of
crap it's not really suitable for, such as feeding livestock despite it being
outside of their normal diet, which has ballooning negative effects
(antibiotics, animal suffering)

2) High-fat, high-sugar foods becoming cheaper. Upside: Tastes good. Downside:
Not good for you. Higher health costs, greater human suffering.

3) GM crops. Upside: all kinds of stuff. Downside: mostly unfounded FUD.

4) Chemical additives. Upside: longer shelf life, ergo cheaper products.
Downside: certain additives are downright scary in doses far greater than
normal presence in foods; AFAICT there's not enough research on the long-term
effects of the normal doses.

~~~
dnsworks
A friend of mine has a theory that the rise of depression over the past 20
years has a lot to do with the low-fat diet kick the country has been on, even
though low-fat diets have never been proven to prevent obesity or to reduce
it. Since our brains are mostly made of fat, maybe low-fat diets aren't the
best ideas? I personally eat less fat than most people I know, yet I'm still
fat.

~~~
marilyn
This makes sense with the link between good fats, like Omega 3s, and elevated
moods I keep hearing about.

It's really important to recognize the difference between good fats (salmon,
avocado, olive oil etc) and bad fats (fries, butter etc). Same is true for
good and bad carbs.

------
83457
"Imagine, if you will, what society would look like if 100 years from now if
what passed as spectacularly obese today would not even turn heads at the
mall."

I don't have to imagine it -- I saw WALL-E

------
josefresco
100 years ago you had to visit the traveling circus to see a fat person.

Now we just turn on the television and turn to TLC or Discovery Channel to see
the same thing.

What exactly has changed besides the technology? Any good circus promoter or
television producer will find a fatter guy than the last fat guy.

I get it, we're all fatter today, but I don't believe this example proves
anything.

~~~
tjogin
You don't need _technology_ to see what was then considered "freakishly"
obese, today. You can just go to any public place. Technology has nothing to
do with it.

~~~
Avshalom
I think the point was that people tune in in massive numbers for say Biggest
Loser just to play look at the fat guy. Ditto with anything about the
enormously obese on random Discovery channel shows. The money comes from
advertisements instead of ticket sales but people are still making money by
showing us fat people.

At least one implication is that just because people were willing to pay money
to see a show that included fat people in 1910 doesn't mean it was actually
considered freakish any more than it is today.

------
Semiapies
Stop people working behind desks and get them back out in the fields, then
stop people taking advantage of national and global markets for food and put
them back at the mercy of regional farm production, and you will see far fewer
obese people.

Mind, that's ignoring the huge pretense of the linked post that the pictured
level of obesity is "normal" or "unremarkable" anywhere. Obesity is a medical
definition, and most people who meet it look far thinner than that.

------
corruption
They probably would have paid to see someone over 60 too.

~~~
eru
Old people weren't that rare. Over 80 would been more of a show, I guess. (But
we should find some data, before we speculate.)

~~~
byrneseyeview
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joice_Heth>

P. T. Barnum traveled with this person, whom he claimed was 161 years old.

She was, in fact, about 80 when she died.

------
adrianwaj
I had to call the US last night for webhost support (this host needed a call
to cancel a domain from being hosted, and an email to add a new one - a paper
trail), and as she had to pause between sentences for labored breath, it was
then that I felt a little bit sorry for her, but at least she was employed.
That was my trip to the circus.

~~~
dpritchett
She could have asthma or emphysema. No reason to assume breathing issues are
weight related.

------
frankus
There's another article on obesity at the site that I like:

[http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/16/hoisted-from-the-
comme...](http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/16/hoisted-from-the-comments-
obesity-mystery-already-solved/)

Particularly this line:

> In order to stay within one pound of your current weight > over a year,
> calories-in have to match calorie-out with > 99.7% accuracy. The calorie
> testing equipment that > determines what goes on food labels is not even
> that > accurate, so it seems implausible that people are > achieving this
> through conscious equation of calories-in > with calories-out.

------
mikecane
People of Walmart. <http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=12413>

~~~
gojomo
I like Walmart, and I've noticed this phenomenon.... though much of my
experience may just be noting geographic differences in obesity, as the
Walmarts I visit tend to be in the less-urban areas of California, Nevada, or
central Texas.

I'd love to see guerrilla-installation of some sort of weight-strain gauge
under the entrances/exits of major eatery chains, so as to collect and publish
data on the average weight of their customers.

~~~
mikecane
I don't live near a Walmart, but this kind of physique is no stranger in NYC.
Just yesterday at a supermarket I saw a pre-teen child about 4-ft high, who
was bursting just like that.

------
mrshoe
Classic:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1knm9N4o#t=5m40s>

------
staticshock
sociological images recently wrote about this. here's their article, which
provides some interesting information omitted by the parent link:
[http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/02/08/the-last-
sideshow-f...](http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/02/08/the-last-sideshow-fat-
man/)

the most interesting omitted point is this: the last Fat Man actually retired
as late as _2003_

------
CoryMathews
Sadly hes probably just over normal now.

~~~
hackermom
In Europe, and Scandinavia in particular, that man would sit at a point way,
way beyond anything defined as normal or even plump.

~~~
tjogin
True, here he would still turn heads.

------
gcb
so, Botticelli ladies were the photoshoped playmates of the time?

~~~
rauljara
I had a Bangladeshi friend explain to me ~8 years ago that all the female
Bangladeshi movie stars (not to be confused with Bollywood stars) were fat.
For most of the population, being thin was a sign of not being able to afford
much food, so fat women were the ideal. Just goes to show how subjective
certain kinds of beauty are.

~~~
stusmith1977
Ditto, a couple of hundred years ago being pale was fashionable - it meant you
were rich enough to not work outside. Nowadays of course, we mostly work
indoors - so being tanned is fashionable.

~~~
yangyang
Still the same in parts of asia (China, India).

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/skinwhitening-a...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/skinwhitening-
adverts-ignite-race-row-in-india-863936.html)

------
TotlolRon
It is amazing what people are willing to pay for.

(Don't focus on the circus stunt. Instead, pay attention to the business
lesson :)

~~~
jrockway
In this day and age of cheap video games, movies, and pornography... there is
not much of a market for this anymore.

~~~
smallblacksun
All those "500 lb mom", "the 1000 pound man" show on the discover channel (and
similar), not to mention the Biggest Loser tell me otherwise.

~~~
goodmitton
Based on that trend, we'll be expected to see 'the 2000 pound man' next.

