How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died

We like to think we live longer and are healthier than our ancestors, but sometimes I wonder. How many of our modern afflictions are a direct result of our industrial methods? Is our average life-span really longer than previous generations, or is there some statistical anomaly that only make it seem that way? Modern medicine can perform miracles, but sometimes all they do is prolong a patient's suffering. Sometimes I think we are so fixated on the least little sign of life that we ignore the bigger picture. It doesn't help that no one agrees on what the bigger picture is. That might explain why we have eliminated it from consideration when making medical decisions. In any case we have a paper from the National Center for Biotechnology Information that argues that the Victorians were better off than we are now.

Abstract

Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. This paper relates the nutritional status of the mid-Victorians to their freedom from degenerative disease; and extrapolates recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of public health today.

Read the whole thing here.

Via Steve McG.