I knew you'd say that, so I already have my answer: you're substituting your own definition of 50% for the articles definition: consumer spending.

I'd say you're moving the goalposts but trying to change "amount spent as an economic measure" to "caloric content" is more like looking at a football field and asking where home plate is.

Because in the US wealth and consumption are considered two sides of the same coin. Wealthy but not conspicuously consuming? You're not keeping up with the Joneses. Conspicuously consuming but poor (thanks, easy credit)? You'll be mistaken as having more money than you do.

The two sides often come together in the upper-middle classes, where people with more-than-comfortable incomes and financial resources will grossly overextend themselves on credit appear more well off than they already are.