Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A lot of proponents of new diets, e.g. Paleo, Primal, Atkins argue that grains have made people unhealthier and life expectancy was much better before the transition to agriculture.

Some research turns up statistics like this:

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

We can conclude that farmers were less healthy than hunters, at least until Classical to Roman times. [Due to the difficulty in disentangling all relevant factors, as Angel explains a bit earlier] [w]e cannot state exactly how much less healthy they were, however, or exactly how or why.

It's argued that people were better fed then, showing sharp drops in pelvic inlet depth index and stature. It's also argued that the rates of dental disease were 3-4 times higher, indicating poor nutrition. Even today, we still don't meet the physical size and health of our Paleolithic ancestors despite the doubling of life expectancy.

A part of this may be due to a more sedentary and crowded lifestyle of agriculture, but physical size and bone development seems like a good indicator of nutrition.

Is there another way of interpreting data such as this or counter-arguments that denote that agriculture has made people healthier? Does the depth of the pelvis actually mean anything in regards to nutrition?

share|improve this question
1  
Please define "healthier". You mention in a single sentence they were healthier but had half of our life expectancy. Isn't it a self-contradiction? –  kubanczyk Apr 24 '13 at 8:19
    
@kubanczyk Healthier as in better nutrition. I left out the details on the life expectancy part because it's a catch all measurement that derails from the topic. Our generation is no longer killed by animals, has third world countries with better sanitation than kings did in the paleolithic era, lacks wars, does not suffer from starvation, has little infant mortality, and so on. Life expectancy is a very poor metric for nutrition! –  Muz Apr 24 '13 at 8:41
    
@Muz better nutrition as in what? More food, higher quality food, more stable food supply, more balanced diet? I'd say no to all of those except maybe the last. It's not the lack of agriculture that made these people have a more natural balance in what they ate, but the lack of farming subsidies. –  jwenting Apr 24 '13 at 9:53
    
As in having all the vitamins/nutrients they need. Higher quality & more balanced diet. There's no doubt that agriculture was a killer technology because it's a low risk source of cheap energy and saved a lot of time. But was it swapping out higher quality food for a more stable food source or were the health dips a side effect of city life? –  Muz Apr 24 '13 at 10:21
4  
This would be a better question for Skeptics.SE. –  New Alexandria Apr 24 '13 at 16:51

3 Answers 3

I'm not exactly sure how to answer this question because there seems to be a hundred factors involved, including the definition of healthy.

Healthy may mean: to survive certain extinction events; to be able to pass on the genes to the next generation (to reproduce); to survive a long time; to be able to successfully compete with conspecifics; etc etc.

Then there is the factor of changing diets. Certainly the diet changed when humans started to plant their own crops but certainly our diet today offers a variety no human being of that time has ever seen.

Therefore, in my opinion, to just state something along the line like "we don't live as healthy as our ancestors who didn't eat grains" lacks a scientific basis. What may be easier to undertake and what has been done in the study you cited (but still lacking a definition of healthy) is to compare diets at the same point of history.

The advantage of agriculture is the increased supply per area rate compared to hunting and gathering and the aspect of food security. Even if it turns out to be less healthy for individuals it supports a bigger population which often replaced other populations throughout history.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1, particularly for the point of farming sustaining larger groups of people, security in food sources, and the resulting genetic spread. –  Benteh Nov 25 '13 at 16:49
    
The hunter-gatherers also died younger. So their remains might seem healthier, as they would be younger... –  Benteh Nov 25 '13 at 16:51

The one fact I know of regarding carbohydrates and diet is that they are, indisputably, worse for the teeth of homo-sapiens. Paleontologists can tell the teeth of (neolithic) agricultural people apart from those of hunter-gatherers at a glance, due to how much worse their teeth are.

The fact that the Iceman suffered from tooth decay is attributable to his eating more and more starchy foods such as bread and cereal porridge which were consumed more commonly in the Neolithic period because of the rise of agriculture

Much of the rest of the new Atkins orthodoxy I think is still up for debate. I personally think he has pretty compelling evidence of a relationship between extremely high carbohydrate intake and Diabetes, but even that is still disputed.

share|improve this answer
1  
Re teeth: big reason why eating grain-based foods was so bad for the teeth in ancient times was that the grains were ground with stones, and the flour contained lots of, effectively, sand which damaged the teeth terribly over longer time. (Source: old Scientific American article) –  quant_dev Jun 10 '13 at 15:38
    
the main reason Dr. Atkins' visions are "still up for debate" is that conventional dieticians actively work to stop any research that would confirm them, as they're directly in opposition to the orthodoxy. As usual, the radical departure from orthodoxy is viewed with hostility, little has changed in science over the last several hundred years in that regard... –  jwenting Jun 11 '13 at 5:39

Carbohydrates were the basis for nutrition stores (silos), which were not possible with meats and fruits/vegetables due to availability. Such storage allows longer forays (time spent doing an activity rather than gathering/preparing food); which probably enabled more scouting/exploration, conquest, design / 'science'.

People today do not need to eat so much grain / carbs. Our nutrition only expanded since agriculture. So we cannot say that we had better nutrition back then.

I suppose you could try to argue that, per capita, nutrition was better. This argument would require proving that fewer meats, fruits and vegetables exist per-capita today than in pre-agricultural times. If you cannot show that, then the situation is purely that we have more options for nutrition today (and possibly worse choices)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.