Kelj
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2019
- Messages
- 299
In this article: https://chriskresser.com/what-mid-victorians-can-teach-us-about-nutrition-and-health/
Chris Kresser comments on this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24425598_How_the_Mid-Victorians_Worked_Ate_and_Died.
This paper and the article by Chris Kresser, well illustrate how easy it is to look at historical and scientific data and see the facts but make assumptions about their meaning from our own bias.
This is the truth of what the mid-victorian working class enjoyed:
"economic and political forces converged to create a higher standard of public health for the British working-class than in any time before or since. Their life expectancy (from age 5, to compensate for higher rates of infant mortality) was as good as that of the modern UK, obesity was almost nonexistent, and the incidence of chronic disease (including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes) was only 10% of what it is today. These figures are even more amazing once you consider that they didn’t have the advantages of modern healthcare, including antibiotics and trauma care."
As Chris points out, Victorian life in Britain is well-documented. We can learn much about how they achieved their remarkable level of health. We must guard against making broad, sweeping statements based on mere conjecture, however. Here are the points Chris makes about why he thinks Victorians were healthier:
1. Move Around As Much As Possible.
This is one arm of the most typical current diet and health advice: "eat less and exercise more". Whenever I point out the greater health of decades past or the healthiness of one modern population over another, my audience is most likely to say those people exercised/exercise more, with no real proof that that they did/do. My reference is my childhood in the midwest where I knew no overweight people, only one child with diabetes, and no chronically ill people. They didn't jog or go to the gym. As Chris points out, neither did the Victorians go to gyms or jog, they just moved as they lived. I'm not saying Victorians didn't labor without some of the labor-saving devices we enjoy, but I do disagree that tremendous energy expenditure is why people have ever been slimmer and healthier with it. In my midwestern childhood with all the conveniences, there were bankers, teachers, librarians, shop keepers, insurance agents, car salesmen, typists, and many other kinds of, largely, sedentary workers. None were overweight. None were jogging or going to the gym. Victorians, too, were performing these kinds of jobs or their equivalent. They didn't jog or go to the gym.
The Victorian middle classes
"It was estimated that the 44,000 clerks, accountants and bankers who had dispatched business in 1851 had swollen to 119,000 20 years later."
This is my argument about movement: if you are going to expend a lot of energy, you had better be taking in plenty of energy. Survivors of starvation, like those with an eating disorder, and those who were in concentration camps know that if you eat less and exercise more your body will break down. That is starvation in any context. It will lead to emaciation, but not wellness. Those who have recovered from this condition know it takes eating more and exercising less (no discretionary exertion until you are completely restored). Let's throw out the notion that healthy people in the past were all laboring in some way we do not do now. We have been good, little citizens and taken up all kinds of activity from walking to extreme sports, and many people still do physically demanding work, but it's not making us more well because of Chris's next point about Victorians:
2. Nutrient Density Is Extremely Important.
Chris says:
"People during the mid-Victorian period ate exceptionally nutrient-dense diets that included copious fresh fruits and vegetables, pasture-raised meats and dairy, fish, nuts, seeds, and legumes. They also routinely ate organ meats, including brains, heart, sweetbreads, liver, kidneys and ‘pluck’ (the lungs and intestines of sheep)......due to their physically demanding lifestyle, men and women during that time period ate twice as many calories as we do today. Men could consume upwards of 5,000 calories on a workday, and women over 3,000. The sheer quantity of food they ate, combined with its superior quality, resulted in average micronutrient levels 10 times higher than those of modern diets.....Because of our drastically lower caloric intake, it’s even more vital that we actively seek out nutrient-dense foods to cram as many micronutrients as possible into a relatively small caloric load."
All of this is true, but I would flip perspective. Nutrients come with the abundance of food. Those bankers, clerks, teachers, and shopkeepers of the Victorian era were eating an abundance of calories. There is no reason at all for us to have a low calorie intake. A high calorie intake ensures a high functioning metabolism, tissue repair, and a body with no need to store fat. Clearly, the abundant caloric intake of mid-Victorians enabled their bodies to regularly repair and, therefore, avoid the chronic diseases that those on a modern low calorie diet are not avoiding. Let's bust the myths that people in the 19th century were mostly starving and our problem today is a too calorie- abundant environment and "highly palatable" food. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals " the rural diet was often better for the poor in more isolated areas of England because of payment made in kind, notably in fuel, grain, potatoes, meat, milk or small patches of land to grow potatoes and vegetables or keep an animal or two.
"The aim of this study was to examine the impact of regional diets on the health of the poor in mid-Victorian Britain......there was an overall improvement in life expectancy during the latter part of the 19th century......Dietary surveys showed that the poor labouring population in isolated rural areas of England, in the mainland and islands of Scotland and in the west of Ireland enjoyed the most nutritious diets. These regions also showed the lowest mortality rates in Britain........also fewer deaths from pulmonary tuberculosis, which is typically associated with better nutrition. These more isolated regions where a peasant-style culture provided abundant locally produced cheap foodstuffs such as potatoes, vegetables, whole grains, and milk and fish, were in the process of disappearing in the face of increasing urbanisation. ....By mid-century, most common fields had been enclosed and farming was predominantly capitalist in type in England, Wales and the Lowlands of Scotland. Whilst this had increased the efficiency of agriculture, it had resulted in agricultural workers being made into paid labourers, often in a seasonal or intermittent manner reliant on a cash economy for housing, food and clothing. The poverty of many in this situation increased the migration to urban areas where jobs were more plentiful and often better paid.....isolation often dictated payment in kind, in grain, potatoes and coal or land where workers were encouraged to produce their own food and keep their own livestock.10In the Lowlands of Scotland, the agricultural revolution was well advanced, but the peasant-style farming culture remained vibrant because of the relative immaturity of capitalist farm production.11....the rural diet was often better for the poor in more isolated areas of England because of payment made in kind, notably in fuel, grain, potatoes, meat, milk or small patches of land to grow potatoes and vegetables or keep an animal or two."
There is much interesting information in this vain. I believe it explains what the world-traveling dentist, Weston Price, saw when he visited isolated people and found little to no dental caries, good health and no tuberculosis. He was looking at people in charge of their own food supply, who traded for what they wanted. When he also visited related people who had moved close to settlements and lived with a cash economy, he found rampant dental caries, malformed palates, tuberculosis and other diseases. The reason is, when you need money to purchase food, it can make your supply of calories and nutrients very precarious.
People will be healthy when they have abundant calories and nutritious food. Did victorians eat cake made from white flour and sugar? Sure. Just read Mrs. Beeton's book of recipes, a best seller of the time, for confirmation. Victorians ate a variety of foods and abundant calories. We should definitely learn from this.
Chris's point number
3. Eat Seasonally and Locally
is reasonable advice. Nutrition is heightened, cost is reduced.
http://tradingconsequences.blogs.edina.ac.uk/files/2014/04/top-twenty.jpg
This is a graph showing some of Britain's imports during the mid-Victorian period. They imported food. So, if you like strawberries in December, you might need to buy them from out of your 100 mile radius. You'll still reap the benefits and enjoyment.
4. Nurture your Gut Bacteria
Recommends eating common Victorian vegetables and
5. Eat Fatty Fish
talks about the popularity of herring and other fish in Britain. It IS an island.
The point I would like to make about making assumptions about the reasons we see good health in a population is embodied in this quote:
Bread
"In our own times, and among civilised peoples, bread has become an article of food of the first necessity; and properly so, for it constitutes of itself a complete life-sustainer, the gluten, fibrin, fat, phosphates, starch and sugar, which it contains, representing all the necessary classes of food..." - Beeton, Isabella. The Book of Household Management. Ward, Lock & Bowden, Limited: London, 1893. page 1081
Why not say that it was the popularity of BREAD that made the mid-Victorians healthy? Because Chris advocates a "paleo" diet.
6. Moderate Your Alcohol Consumption
Chris acknowledged the mid-Victorians drank a lot of beer, but focuses on its lower alcohol content. This article:
Page cannot be found
m200910/cmselect/cmhealth/151/15106.
htm
does, indeed, show beer consumption rising during the mid-Victorian period and wine and spirits, too. I'm not sure one could really make the case that they were healthy because of the lower alcohol content. Why not just say they were healthy because they drank beer, wine, and spirits? They also ate an abundance of calories, so they were not just drinking alcohol and becoming malnourished.
Chris sims up by saying:
"increasing imports of white flour, sugar and other processed foods during the last part of the nineteenth century caused a swift decline in Britain’s public health."
Here: http://tradingconsequences.blogs.edina.ac.uk/files/2014/04/top-twenty.jpg
A commodities chart shows sugar imports rising from 1855-1865 and being lower in 1895, so I'm not sure why we would assume that higher sugar consumption after the mid-Victorian period was the reason for any decline in public health, unless it is because we advocate against sugar. Why not say it was the rising popularity of this diet that caused the health decline?
150 Years of Dieting Fads: An American Story
"William Banting. He invented the low-carb diet of 1863. Even then Americans were trying out advice that urged fish, mutton or "any meat except pork" for breakfast, lunch and dinner - hold the potatoes, please."
Banting was British. Banting was Victorian.
My point is: while the records show the mid-Victorian working class enjoyed exceptional health and there are many good things to learn from them, we must guard against jumping to conclusions about specific reasons why. Those assumptions usually fall apart upon examination.
Chris Kresser comments on this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24425598_How_the_Mid-Victorians_Worked_Ate_and_Died.
This paper and the article by Chris Kresser, well illustrate how easy it is to look at historical and scientific data and see the facts but make assumptions about their meaning from our own bias.
This is the truth of what the mid-victorian working class enjoyed:
"economic and political forces converged to create a higher standard of public health for the British working-class than in any time before or since. Their life expectancy (from age 5, to compensate for higher rates of infant mortality) was as good as that of the modern UK, obesity was almost nonexistent, and the incidence of chronic disease (including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes) was only 10% of what it is today. These figures are even more amazing once you consider that they didn’t have the advantages of modern healthcare, including antibiotics and trauma care."
As Chris points out, Victorian life in Britain is well-documented. We can learn much about how they achieved their remarkable level of health. We must guard against making broad, sweeping statements based on mere conjecture, however. Here are the points Chris makes about why he thinks Victorians were healthier:
1. Move Around As Much As Possible.
This is one arm of the most typical current diet and health advice: "eat less and exercise more". Whenever I point out the greater health of decades past or the healthiness of one modern population over another, my audience is most likely to say those people exercised/exercise more, with no real proof that that they did/do. My reference is my childhood in the midwest where I knew no overweight people, only one child with diabetes, and no chronically ill people. They didn't jog or go to the gym. As Chris points out, neither did the Victorians go to gyms or jog, they just moved as they lived. I'm not saying Victorians didn't labor without some of the labor-saving devices we enjoy, but I do disagree that tremendous energy expenditure is why people have ever been slimmer and healthier with it. In my midwestern childhood with all the conveniences, there were bankers, teachers, librarians, shop keepers, insurance agents, car salesmen, typists, and many other kinds of, largely, sedentary workers. None were overweight. None were jogging or going to the gym. Victorians, too, were performing these kinds of jobs or their equivalent. They didn't jog or go to the gym.
The Victorian middle classes
"It was estimated that the 44,000 clerks, accountants and bankers who had dispatched business in 1851 had swollen to 119,000 20 years later."
This is my argument about movement: if you are going to expend a lot of energy, you had better be taking in plenty of energy. Survivors of starvation, like those with an eating disorder, and those who were in concentration camps know that if you eat less and exercise more your body will break down. That is starvation in any context. It will lead to emaciation, but not wellness. Those who have recovered from this condition know it takes eating more and exercising less (no discretionary exertion until you are completely restored). Let's throw out the notion that healthy people in the past were all laboring in some way we do not do now. We have been good, little citizens and taken up all kinds of activity from walking to extreme sports, and many people still do physically demanding work, but it's not making us more well because of Chris's next point about Victorians:
2. Nutrient Density Is Extremely Important.
Chris says:
"People during the mid-Victorian period ate exceptionally nutrient-dense diets that included copious fresh fruits and vegetables, pasture-raised meats and dairy, fish, nuts, seeds, and legumes. They also routinely ate organ meats, including brains, heart, sweetbreads, liver, kidneys and ‘pluck’ (the lungs and intestines of sheep)......due to their physically demanding lifestyle, men and women during that time period ate twice as many calories as we do today. Men could consume upwards of 5,000 calories on a workday, and women over 3,000. The sheer quantity of food they ate, combined with its superior quality, resulted in average micronutrient levels 10 times higher than those of modern diets.....Because of our drastically lower caloric intake, it’s even more vital that we actively seek out nutrient-dense foods to cram as many micronutrients as possible into a relatively small caloric load."
All of this is true, but I would flip perspective. Nutrients come with the abundance of food. Those bankers, clerks, teachers, and shopkeepers of the Victorian era were eating an abundance of calories. There is no reason at all for us to have a low calorie intake. A high calorie intake ensures a high functioning metabolism, tissue repair, and a body with no need to store fat. Clearly, the abundant caloric intake of mid-Victorians enabled their bodies to regularly repair and, therefore, avoid the chronic diseases that those on a modern low calorie diet are not avoiding. Let's bust the myths that people in the 19th century were mostly starving and our problem today is a too calorie- abundant environment and "highly palatable" food. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals " the rural diet was often better for the poor in more isolated areas of England because of payment made in kind, notably in fuel, grain, potatoes, meat, milk or small patches of land to grow potatoes and vegetables or keep an animal or two.
"The aim of this study was to examine the impact of regional diets on the health of the poor in mid-Victorian Britain......there was an overall improvement in life expectancy during the latter part of the 19th century......Dietary surveys showed that the poor labouring population in isolated rural areas of England, in the mainland and islands of Scotland and in the west of Ireland enjoyed the most nutritious diets. These regions also showed the lowest mortality rates in Britain........also fewer deaths from pulmonary tuberculosis, which is typically associated with better nutrition. These more isolated regions where a peasant-style culture provided abundant locally produced cheap foodstuffs such as potatoes, vegetables, whole grains, and milk and fish, were in the process of disappearing in the face of increasing urbanisation. ....By mid-century, most common fields had been enclosed and farming was predominantly capitalist in type in England, Wales and the Lowlands of Scotland. Whilst this had increased the efficiency of agriculture, it had resulted in agricultural workers being made into paid labourers, often in a seasonal or intermittent manner reliant on a cash economy for housing, food and clothing. The poverty of many in this situation increased the migration to urban areas where jobs were more plentiful and often better paid.....isolation often dictated payment in kind, in grain, potatoes and coal or land where workers were encouraged to produce their own food and keep their own livestock.10In the Lowlands of Scotland, the agricultural revolution was well advanced, but the peasant-style farming culture remained vibrant because of the relative immaturity of capitalist farm production.11....the rural diet was often better for the poor in more isolated areas of England because of payment made in kind, notably in fuel, grain, potatoes, meat, milk or small patches of land to grow potatoes and vegetables or keep an animal or two."
There is much interesting information in this vain. I believe it explains what the world-traveling dentist, Weston Price, saw when he visited isolated people and found little to no dental caries, good health and no tuberculosis. He was looking at people in charge of their own food supply, who traded for what they wanted. When he also visited related people who had moved close to settlements and lived with a cash economy, he found rampant dental caries, malformed palates, tuberculosis and other diseases. The reason is, when you need money to purchase food, it can make your supply of calories and nutrients very precarious.
People will be healthy when they have abundant calories and nutritious food. Did victorians eat cake made from white flour and sugar? Sure. Just read Mrs. Beeton's book of recipes, a best seller of the time, for confirmation. Victorians ate a variety of foods and abundant calories. We should definitely learn from this.
Chris's point number
3. Eat Seasonally and Locally
is reasonable advice. Nutrition is heightened, cost is reduced.
http://tradingconsequences.blogs.edina.ac.uk/files/2014/04/top-twenty.jpg
This is a graph showing some of Britain's imports during the mid-Victorian period. They imported food. So, if you like strawberries in December, you might need to buy them from out of your 100 mile radius. You'll still reap the benefits and enjoyment.
4. Nurture your Gut Bacteria
Recommends eating common Victorian vegetables and
5. Eat Fatty Fish
talks about the popularity of herring and other fish in Britain. It IS an island.
The point I would like to make about making assumptions about the reasons we see good health in a population is embodied in this quote:
Bread
"In our own times, and among civilised peoples, bread has become an article of food of the first necessity; and properly so, for it constitutes of itself a complete life-sustainer, the gluten, fibrin, fat, phosphates, starch and sugar, which it contains, representing all the necessary classes of food..." - Beeton, Isabella. The Book of Household Management. Ward, Lock & Bowden, Limited: London, 1893. page 1081
Why not say that it was the popularity of BREAD that made the mid-Victorians healthy? Because Chris advocates a "paleo" diet.
6. Moderate Your Alcohol Consumption
Chris acknowledged the mid-Victorians drank a lot of beer, but focuses on its lower alcohol content. This article:
Page cannot be found
m200910/cmselect/cmhealth/151/15106.
htm
does, indeed, show beer consumption rising during the mid-Victorian period and wine and spirits, too. I'm not sure one could really make the case that they were healthy because of the lower alcohol content. Why not just say they were healthy because they drank beer, wine, and spirits? They also ate an abundance of calories, so they were not just drinking alcohol and becoming malnourished.
Chris sims up by saying:
"increasing imports of white flour, sugar and other processed foods during the last part of the nineteenth century caused a swift decline in Britain’s public health."
Here: http://tradingconsequences.blogs.edina.ac.uk/files/2014/04/top-twenty.jpg
A commodities chart shows sugar imports rising from 1855-1865 and being lower in 1895, so I'm not sure why we would assume that higher sugar consumption after the mid-Victorian period was the reason for any decline in public health, unless it is because we advocate against sugar. Why not say it was the rising popularity of this diet that caused the health decline?
150 Years of Dieting Fads: An American Story
"William Banting. He invented the low-carb diet of 1863. Even then Americans were trying out advice that urged fish, mutton or "any meat except pork" for breakfast, lunch and dinner - hold the potatoes, please."
Banting was British. Banting was Victorian.
My point is: while the records show the mid-Victorian working class enjoyed exceptional health and there are many good things to learn from them, we must guard against jumping to conclusions about specific reasons why. Those assumptions usually fall apart upon examination.
