This site is pretty interesting in this regard.
Again, we still have issues in the world both from inadequate calories and from inadequate nutrition with adequate calories. And issues from too many calories because of the nature of how the nutrition is package (high palatability, high calorie, low satiety). The knowledge is still growing but these problems are not due to the lack of knowledge.
DSeid’s link refers to stature, which is one way of assaying changes in nutritional status over time. While our most ancient ancestors are thought to have been taller (and also had larger brain capacity) than us, it’s interesting to look at how human height has changed over time:
“10,000 years ago: European males – 162.5cm (5 ft 4 inches). A dramatic reduction in the size of humans occurred at this time. Many scientists think that this reduction was influenced by global climatic change and the adoption of agriculture. Agricultural communities suffered from malnutrition as a result of failed crops and a more restricted diet. Furthermore, a close association with domestic livestock introduced new diseases into human populations.
600 years ago: European males – 165 cm (5 ft 5 inches). Poor diet and health were the main causes for the shorter stature at this time.
Today: European males – 175 cm (5ft 9 inches). There has been an increase in height over the last few hundred years. In part, this increase is due to improved diet and health care. There may also be a genetic link as industrial expansion and urbanisation has brought together genetically isolated people and reduced the impacts of inbreeding due to a greater mixing of populations and their genes.”
Bottom line is that humans living 5,000 years ago did not enjoy idyllic nutritional standards that we have forgotten, supposedly due to the ignorance of modern science/medicine.
Not to beat the dead horse here but let’s recap and add in one additional little bit …
Humanity’s issue in the exclusively hunter-gatherer stage seemed to be mostly that such a lifestyle could only support so much population density. The foodstuff intake though tended to be pretty diverse (inclusive of animal sources and typically many different vegetable sources) and there seemed to be little in the way of nutrient deficiencies.
As soon as agriculture was adopted, something most mark as the beginning of “civilization” (such as it is), food diversity narrowed dramatically even as the amount of available calories increased. More population density but with many more nutrient deficiencies with major impacts. No innate knowledge about nutrition appeared. Somehow over many years peoples stumbled on things that helped them get sick less - treating corn with ash, also eating beans and greens, so on, but really the few centuries of increased nutrition knowledge has resulted in the greatest impacts. As societies have changed the questions have changed. Now the Western world is dealing with the impact of excess calories resultant of large scale industrialization of food and the creation of food products designed to trigger increased consumption; a new set of questions and issues emerge while we still deal with global issues of inadequate nutrition that will likely worsen before they improve.
Now a more recent advance - the story of folate fortification. Neural tube defects, such as anencephaly, spina bifida, and encephalocele, would typically happen in about one out of a thousand pregnancies, two thirds of which would make it to term. Folate supplementation reduces those defects substantially. Folate is now routinely supplemented in foods and women planning on becoming pregnant are advised to take more. The tactic has been effective.
NTD = neural tube defects; SB = spina bifida; AN = anencephaly.
Yet the story does not stop there. More is not better for all. Those not pregnant or possibly about to be who are taking multis with more (in the belief that a multi can cause no harm, is a bit of an insurance policy) may be increasing their cancer risks.
No question that we possess lots of knowledge that we never had before and that such knowledge has done much good, and could do more if we had the political will to make it so. But also no question that there are many questions that don’t have perfect answers to yet, and more that we have not even thought to ask yet.
It’s the innovator’s dilemma all over again: something new comes along that is inferior to the existing thing in almost every way except one. It takes over everything anyway, because the one way in which it is better turns out to be a killer feature. Over time all the disadvantages are addressed and then it’s better than the old thing in pretty much every way.
3.5" HDDs vs 5.25" HDDs (or was it 5.25 vs 8?)
Steam ships vs sailing ships
Agriculture vs hunting/gathering
Blackberries, which can be found around the city, are in season now, so I go gather some once a week for in my morning yoghurt. I guess I could also catch a rabbit while I’m at it, but going to the super market seems more efficient…
If the hunting (or gathering) isn’t going well (due to climatic conditions, bad luck or other reasons), I’d expect there to be nutritional consequences.
Were the Cro-Magnons all superb physical specimens?
“All”? Of course not.
Still if we go by average height as a proxy your cite does seem to claim that they were likely doing pretty well nutritionally:
It was, per your cite, about 10,000 years ago that the dramatic size reduction occurred, at least partially due to the adoption of agriculture. (Although I suspect adaptation to a colder environment also had something to do with that.)
That bad luck or climatic conditions could lead to nutritional issues, more commonly due to lack of adequate calories than nutrient deficiencies, is at least consistent with what our op posits.
There’s a lot more nutrition research going on than you’re likely to be aware of. I’m not aware of most of it because I don’t read nutrition and biochemistry journals. But it’s there. Lots of it.
Poor nutrition is recognized as a problem and a noticable number of PR dollars are devoted to educating the public about it. There’s a lot more Public Health research and outreach than you’re likely to be aware of. Identifying and addressing “grocery deserts” is now a big thing. It’s getting a lot of funding. Have you heard of the term? Do you know if your county has gotten grant money to participate. Mine has.
There’s also significant money going to projects that educate students, parents, and teachers about the benefits of walking or biking to school, and encouraging them to do that. It used to be called “Safe Routes to School” but it’s recently shifted to “Active Transportation Planning.” Has your city gotten a grant to fund that? Mine has.
Did you know that schools are now required by federal regulation to have a wellness program? The regulators are reacting to stacks of research. Not just research on nutrition, but also public health and sociology research into why the public ignores basic nutrition information and what programs have how much success in encouraging folks to make life changes that include better nutrition and more exercise.
We don’t have the money to give everyone a daily diet coach. We can’t force them to ignore books selling fad diets. If the damnfool blood type diet sold well, then you have to conclude that any idiot diet will sell. I’d say that people with goiters were more motivated to believe the research and take their iodine suppliments, but then I remember that in the US, it was one researcher’s lobbying that got iodine salts added to table salt. People never did buy into separately purchased suppliments.
The basic knowledge is there. Further research is ongoing. Relatively speaking, the government is bludgeoning us with nutrition information. Billions are being spent on research and outreach. I don’t really know what else to say.
Ah, here’s something. A couple of recent studies suggest that our microbiome (a really hot research topic), may not only have some effect on how hungry we feel and how satiated we feel after eating and what kinds of food we prefer, it may (remember, the results are preliminary - research is ongoing) even nudge us to crave chocolate. Disclaimer: so far, the research has been done with mice. Warning: if the words “fecal transfer” squick you out, you should avoid reading this research.
The other day I saw one of those food documentaries that obviously wants us all to become locavore vegans where you see American school kids getting terrible food from the school cafeteria. The options available were pretty bad to begin with, apparently with no help from the federal government that imposes some idiotic requirements to get funding. But then the kids get to choose what they want to eat, and obviously they massively choose pizza and fries.
That is wrong on so many levels. Kids don’t know what’s good for them. If they did, they wouldn’t have to be in school in the first place. So don’t let them choose their own food.
And of course selling soda inside schools should be against the law. Even juice or milk is bad, let kids drink water. For free. Schools are ungodly expensive, and we’re ruining kids’ health for the few bucks in kickback schools get from Coca Cola and Pepsi? Insanity.
I’m now convinced that I know the source of the childhood obesity problem.
(BTW, when I was in school in the Netherlands back in the day, we didn’t even have school lunches, we brought sandwiches from home. I didn’t get fat until I left school.)
Politics? Cause every sentence in your post, before this one, was about politics. Including:
In some areas, lobbying for this would get you praise, in others it would get you lynched. And it won’t stop parents from packing twinkies and cheetos. Unless you are also going to ban any food from home. Which has been suggested. If you’re going to lobby for that, though, I’d suggest wearing asbestos underwear.
I have no comment on the “idiotic requirements to get funding.” I don’t know the requirements personally. I will say that dealing with bureaucracy is a skill. People without the skill declare it to be idiotic. But those same people would scream bloody murder if money was handed out with no restrictions or checks, and they’d be right because a lot of it would be wasted and it would not be distributed equitably.
Of course, setting up bureaucratic programs is also a skill. So idiotic requirements are always a possibility. In the best case, those who need to use the program then band together to lobby for a change in requirements. I have seen this work. Not immediately, but within a year. It can be done. But it takes political will.
Are you actually going to get involved with a school nutrition improvement program. There are a lot of them out there and some of them are looking for volunteers.
(Don’t let kids choose their own lunch foods.)
Lynched, really? What would be the logic behind that?
I have no problems against such rules in principle, but I don’t think that’s a fight worth fighting at this point, while there is still so much else to do.
It should start with banning soft drinks from schools and removing the most egregious foods from school lunch menus, which I think should be doable.
No, dealing with kids is not my thing. But I am going to stop listening to the bellyaching about childhood obesity as long as no steps are taken in this area.
Ain’t no pencil-necked gummint jerk going to tell MY kid what to eat. Of course, in the case of free or reduced price lunches, the school or school district is already choosing, and is doing so under federal guidelines. Even then you get things like lunch aides standing by the trash cans to collect the whole oranges and apples that would have otherwise been thrown out.
If the new menu is just a little different from what the kids are used to, there may be no reaction or only a reaction based on not wanting to be told what to do. If the new menu is significantly different and does not match what the kids eat at home, there may be a big backlash. For one thing, you’ll be insulting their choices. For another, a lot of the kids will just not eat the new food and will come home hungry and complaining.
No candy or soda sold at school - not much complaint. (And that’s where schools are starting.) No hamburgers or pizza, ever - complaints more likely.
And if you start saying no food from home or that home food will be policed and confiscated, which is the only way to control what all students are eating, you’d better be prepared for a complaint level that may include efforts to get you fired (which is what lynching means in this context).
It also matters if the change is the result of grassroots, local wishes or if it’s imposed from above. If it’s a state or federal mandate, the chances of it clashing with local wishes is higher.
A lot of the bellyaching about childhood obesity is being done by the people who are pushing for the changes you’re suggesting. Bellyaching, aka education, is the first step. Another word for it is nagging. It’s being aimed at schools and school districts, and at parents, who control what their children eat at home and who can either support the changes or resist them.
If you’re not feeding a child, it’s not being aimed at you.