The book Lark Rise documents the apparent good health and long lives of nineteenth century rural labourers despite a physically demanding lifestyle, a life of considerable material poverty relative to today and less medical support than is available today. The testimony of this book is backed up by my own observations of mortality and lifespans while doing family history research. What could be the explanation?
The first that springs to mind is that the author is simply mistaken; that her recollection is clouded by time, by the rosy glow of the good old days. However, the author herself seems aware of this possibility and her own seeking for an explanation suggests that, as far as she can tell, she is recalling fact and not invention.
It's likely that one of the reasons the doctor was seen so rarely was due to the cost. In those days there was no NHS. A doctor's services had to be paid for although it is claimed that wealthy doctors also treated patients who were unable to pay for free and many hospitals were charitable institutions and free to the poor (see for example, discussion in the following books: Sociology as applied to medicine by Graham Scrambler, Elsevier, 2008 and Social policy and welfare by Walsh, Stephens and Moore, Nelson Thornes, 2000, both available on Google books). However, it seems likely that the doctor was only called in when absolutely necessary. People might have treated less serious complaints themselves and put up with chronic conditions and pain such as arthritis.
Assuming then that this does show that serious disease - such as cancer - was largely absent what is the reason for this generally robust health and long life?
First and foremost, probably vitamin D: - children were sent outside to play every day, labourers worked outdoors. Pork meat and fat was a major component of the diet and the pigs were kept outside and fed a diet of scraps, milk and vegetable matter which would have been notably deficient in soy and corn (i.e. maize, because in nineteenth century England, corn meant wheat)! Thus, the lard obtained likely would have been as high in vitamin D as it is possible for lard to be and probably lower in omega-6 polyunsaturates than today's. Thus the diet would have been better balanced in the omega-6/omega-3 ratio.
Meat was eaten daily and, even if only once a day, because of the way nothing was wasted and everything cooked in one pot, the goodness (minerals, gelatine) from meat and bone juices would have been eaten up by the children, soaked into the bread or pudding. In addition, it appears that fish was eaten weekly (the fishmonger called weekly) and fish roe was prized and preferentially given to children.
Although many fruits and vegetables we habitually eat today (oranges, bananas, tomatoes) were absent. Other, native green plants (e.g. sorrel, nettle, dandelion, goose grass and many more are all edible) were taken from the wild and eaten. (It is in fact to this that the author herself attributes the good health of the hamlet.)
Finally, the bread was made from stoneground wheat. It is widely believed that this is more nutritious than today's refined white flours. But, it's not as clear cut as it seems.
On the one hand, white flour is very low in nutrients compared to wholemeal (see here for the effects of modern processing on flour). From Fitday, all-purpose white wheat flour unenriched has the following micronutrient profile (as a percentage of daily allowance)
whereas whole wheat flour has much more Iron, B vitamins and other minerals.
But without neutralization of the phytate content of the wholemeal flour, much of this nutritional content, particularly the minerals, cannot be absorbed [1] (see also the discussion of White Flour vs Whole Wheat here). There is also the question of its effect on teeth. There are also other 'anti-nutrients' in whole grains - see for example here.
However, it's possible that, as the bread was made at home, it was actually a sourdough bread. In this case the effects of anti-nutrients (lectins and leptins) and phytate would have been partially neutralized by the longer fermentation. (Stephan on Whole Health Source has many posts on this issue.)
[1] McGee, H. On Food and Cooking, London: Unwin Hyman Ltd, 1984.
The first that springs to mind is that the author is simply mistaken; that her recollection is clouded by time, by the rosy glow of the good old days. However, the author herself seems aware of this possibility and her own seeking for an explanation suggests that, as far as she can tell, she is recalling fact and not invention.
It's likely that one of the reasons the doctor was seen so rarely was due to the cost. In those days there was no NHS. A doctor's services had to be paid for although it is claimed that wealthy doctors also treated patients who were unable to pay for free and many hospitals were charitable institutions and free to the poor (see for example, discussion in the following books: Sociology as applied to medicine by Graham Scrambler, Elsevier, 2008 and Social policy and welfare by Walsh, Stephens and Moore, Nelson Thornes, 2000, both available on Google books). However, it seems likely that the doctor was only called in when absolutely necessary. People might have treated less serious complaints themselves and put up with chronic conditions and pain such as arthritis.
Assuming then that this does show that serious disease - such as cancer - was largely absent what is the reason for this generally robust health and long life?
First and foremost, probably vitamin D: - children were sent outside to play every day, labourers worked outdoors. Pork meat and fat was a major component of the diet and the pigs were kept outside and fed a diet of scraps, milk and vegetable matter which would have been notably deficient in soy and corn (i.e. maize, because in nineteenth century England, corn meant wheat)! Thus, the lard obtained likely would have been as high in vitamin D as it is possible for lard to be and probably lower in omega-6 polyunsaturates than today's. Thus the diet would have been better balanced in the omega-6/omega-3 ratio.
Meat was eaten daily and, even if only once a day, because of the way nothing was wasted and everything cooked in one pot, the goodness (minerals, gelatine) from meat and bone juices would have been eaten up by the children, soaked into the bread or pudding. In addition, it appears that fish was eaten weekly (the fishmonger called weekly) and fish roe was prized and preferentially given to children.
Although many fruits and vegetables we habitually eat today (oranges, bananas, tomatoes) were absent. Other, native green plants (e.g. sorrel, nettle, dandelion, goose grass and many more are all edible) were taken from the wild and eaten. (It is in fact to this that the author herself attributes the good health of the hamlet.)
Finally, the bread was made from stoneground wheat. It is widely believed that this is more nutritious than today's refined white flours. But, it's not as clear cut as it seems.
On the one hand, white flour is very low in nutrients compared to wholemeal (see here for the effects of modern processing on flour). From Fitday, all-purpose white wheat flour unenriched has the following micronutrient profile (as a percentage of daily allowance)
Vitamin A | 0 | % |
Calcium | 2 | % |
Vitamin D | 0 | % |
Thiamin | 10 | % |
Niacin | 8 | % |
Vitamin B6 | 3 | % |
Phosphorus | 14 | % |
Selenium | 61 | % |
Vitamin C | 0 | % |
Iron | 8 | % |
Vitamin E | 0 | % |
Riboflavin | 3 | % |
Vitamin B12 | 0 | % |
Manganese | 43 | % |
Copper | 9 | % |
Magnesium | 7 | % |
Zinc | 6 | % |
whereas whole wheat flour has much more Iron, B vitamins and other minerals.
Vitamin A | 0 | % |
Calcium | 4 | % |
Vitamin D | 0 | % |
Thiamin | 36 | % |
Niacin | 38 | % |
Vitamin B6 | 20 | % |
Phosphorus | 42 | % |
Selenium | 121 | % |
Vitamin C | 0 | % |
Iron | 26 | % |
Vitamin E | 5 | % |
Riboflavin | 15 | % |
Vitamin B12 | 0 | % |
Manganese | 228 | % |
Copper | 23 | % |
Magnesium | 41 | % |
Zinc | 23 | % |
But without neutralization of the phytate content of the wholemeal flour, much of this nutritional content, particularly the minerals, cannot be absorbed [1] (see also the discussion of White Flour vs Whole Wheat here). There is also the question of its effect on teeth. There are also other 'anti-nutrients' in whole grains - see for example here.
However, it's possible that, as the bread was made at home, it was actually a sourdough bread. In this case the effects of anti-nutrients (lectins and leptins) and phytate would have been partially neutralized by the longer fermentation. (Stephan on Whole Health Source has many posts on this issue.)
[1] McGee, H. On Food and Cooking, London: Unwin Hyman Ltd, 1984.
No comments:
Post a Comment