You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
How the mid-Victorians flourished - a lesson for (post, we hope) Obamacare policy
2012-06-18
Long article that summarizes a series of 3 scholarly articles. Thought provoking. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
The mid-Victorian period is usually defined as the years between 1850 and 1870, but in nutritional terms we have identified a slightly longer period, lasting until around 1880. During these 30 years, we argue here, a generation grew up with probably the best standards of health ever enjoyed by a modern state. The British population had risen significantly and had become increasingly urbanised, but the great public health movement had not yet been established and Britain's towns and cities were still notoriously unhealthy environments. Despite this, and contrary to historical tradition, we argue in this paper, using a range of historical evidence, which Britain and its world-dominating empire were supported by a workforce, an army and a navy comprised of individuals who were healthier, fitter and stronger than we are today. They were almost entirely free of the degenerative diseases which maim and kill so many of us, and although it is commonly stated that this is because they all died young, the reverse is true; public records reveal that they lived as long -- or longer -- than we do in the 21st century.

These findings are remarkable, as this brief period of great good health predates not only the public health movement but also the great 20th century medical advances in surgery, infection control and drugs. They are also in marked contrast to popular views about Victorian squalor and disease, views that have long obscured the realities of life and death during that 'period of equipoise'.

Our recent research indicates that the mid-Victorians' good health was entirely due to their superior diet. This period was, nutritionally speaking, an island in time; one that was created and subsequently squandered by economic and political forces. This begs a series of questions. How did this brief nutritional 'golden age' come about? How was it lost? And could we recreate it?
Posted by:

#7  Despite this, and contrary to historical tradition, we argue in this paper, using a range of historical evidence, which Britain and its world-dominating empire were supported by a workforce, an army and a navy comprised of individuals who were healthier, fitter and stronger than we are today.

Yep, if you lived beyond childhood. They sort of skip the 'thinning out' that occurs with 19th Century infant mortality rates. It makes great statistics when the weak are gone by adulthood. Smack of Social Darwinism. Didn't we just have an issue with people who cherry pick data?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2012-06-18 21:42  

#6  The paper says that many urban families had a couple hens, too, yielding a dozen or more eggs a week. Those birds ate a lot of insects and food scraps, not just grain, so they would have had more Omega 3s etc. than the industrial, grain fed egg factories produce.
Posted by: lotp   2012-06-18 21:36  

#5  Have any problems with thieves?
It's in the FRONT yard and any passer-by could grab whatever's ripe, prove it.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2012-06-18 21:04  

#4  The tract homes that mushroomed outside of major cities grew lawns instead of vegetable gardens because 1. The topsoil had been stripped away by the builders and there wasn't much left; 2 Lawns were a sort of status symbol: "I don't have to devote my property to growing my own food".

Fast forward a few generations. Now, for the first time in my stodgy domestic life, I'm a trendsetter. Two years ago we took out a tree in the front yard and dug up the lawn for vegetable beds. Now a few neighbors have their tomatoes in the front yard too, and the Sunday paper had an article about urban gardens in Madison.
Posted by: mom   2012-06-18 18:07  

#3  Other factors, too. Very locally produced vegs and fruits using organic fertilizers => more micronutrients in the crop, so that not only did they eat more of these good foods, the foods were better for them than our mass-farmed equivalents grown on highly-worked soil & bred to hold up to long distance travel. Also very little butter fats in the diet, much less alcohol and very little tobacco use. Way less sugar and those mostly not the refined cane sugar type. Whole grains.

The stats on changes in strength and stature within one - two subsequent generations are eye-opening.
Posted by: lotp   2012-06-18 17:20  

#2  Processed foods didn't exist back then. People have a ton more choice now. Junk food is aimed squarely at the local palate, and scientists are hired to create it.
Posted by: gromky   2012-06-18 16:59  

#1  Coincidentally, I came across this article on a growing food business that seeks to bring fresh vegs to the city.
Posted by: lotp   2012-06-18 15:11  

00:00