Scott Alexander critiques a paper claiming superior Victorian health, finding issues with its key arguments while agreeing on some points about diet-linked disease increases. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a paper claiming mid-Victorian Britain had superior health and longevity compared to today. He fact-checks key claims, finding issues with the paper's arguments about height decreases and life expectancy. While agreeing that Victorians likely had less cancer and heart disease, Scott disagrees with attributing this solely to nutrition, suggesting modern diets may have too much of harmful foods rather than lacking nutrients. He's skeptical of the authors' promotion of supplements, noting lack of evidence for their efficacy. Scott does praise the paper for highlighting the need to better understand why whole foods are beneficial. Overall, he finds the paper's main claims unsupported but agrees there has been a gradual rise in some diseases linked to modern diets. Shorter summary