View Single Post
  #34  
Old 01-31-2017, 01:27 PM
jbaker jbaker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 366
As asked, the question is hopelessly one-sided: The modern diet is incomparably better, because there are consistently reliable sources of food and because modern food is hygienic. These advantages far outweigh any nutritional advantages that medieval peasants might have had.

The more interesting question, I think, is whether the medieval peasant's diet actually did have nutritional advantages (assuming no famine and disregarding hygiene). And in that regard, consider the peasant's diet as it actually existed, and not what a nutritionally knowledgeable modern person would have eaten if taken back in time. Yes, the peasant had food that was all local and natural, with no added sugar, pesticides, or preservatives other than salt. But the peasant was likely overreliant on a small number of staple foods and probably ate too much salt, since that was the only preservative. The peasant was also at risk of scurvy, a scourge that has entirely disappeared from the modern world. I'm inclined to think that the modern diet, for all its flaws, was probably more nutritious.