http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/09/13/223-government-hates-good-health/
the new lewrockwell podcast has led me to this question:
The reccomended dietary guidelines that grew out of the 1977 McGovern Report, itself grew out of the Ancel Keys 7 country study. The study concluded the lipid hypothesis which basically said high cholesterol and saturated fats cause heart diease.
But we now know that Ancel Keys left out several countries that would have proved his hypothesis completely incorrect. Did the federal government know that back then?
If so, why did they create the flawed dietary guidelines that promote the flawed idea of eating little to no cholesterol and saturated fats?
Also, now that we know the study was "fixed" why doesn't the federal government get rid of the flawed dietary recommended guidelines, or at least correct them?
This seems to be highly unusual and we really should demand an answer.
Because, at the time, it looked like those things contributed to heart disease. And they've stuck around forever because nutrition is a breeding ground for religious dogma. In theory the government could have used these scare tactics to their advantage, but by in large I see that americans ignore the USDA guidelines. And no matter how bad you think the USDA guidelines are, they're still better than what normal americans are eating. So maybe fat isn't "bad" but if you can get people to stop eating cheeseburgers they'll reduce their overall calories and lose weight/improve health markers.
anyone who knows anything about good health realizes it has nothing to do with fat or sweets....its about real food vs fake (hormone laden, antobiotic unpure food or stuff that isn't even food at all)....
eat lots of real food and you heal. simple. eat fake foods and you get sick.
but the fact that the USDA guidleines are based off a study that was "fixed" is concerning....why would they do this? and not correct it now that they know its been fixed?
Because science doesn't really have a good answer for what the "best" diet is. Actually they've just found out that within reason, basically nothing matters other than calories. You can complain all you want about vitamin deficiencies but for the average american, the vast majority of marginal benefits are procured during weight loss no matter which diet you're on. This isn't the answer anyone wants to hear. They're all looking science to find some evil gremlin like HFCS or saturated fats that are causing problems. But the simplest explanation is always calories. And calories have been shown in controlled studies to cause problems. HFCS and saturated fat (within reason; actually a pretty wide margin) have not. So there's really nothing to change their guidelines "to". The real debate is over which dietary recommendations can best cause people to lower their calorie intake. Personally I just count, but for some reason everyone has a phobia of counting. So they attach superstitious labels to food as "good" and "bad", and wind up eating less because they don't compenstate 100% of the evil foods they used to eat with the good foods they're supposed to eat. For example, if someone stops eating fast food and prepares their own meals, then they're probably not going to replace the fast food with an equal number of calories. Its just a psychological trick. So when the FDA says "eat low fat", they're trying to get you to eat lower calories, and that's not a bad recommendation.
I mean, I know on the mises forums we just assume that everything the government does is wrong, but if NASA can correctly record that gravity is 9.81m/ss, then the USDA can probably figure out that people need to eat less calories. The only possible convolution is if you think the dept of health is somehow influenced by special interests to promote particular dietary paradigms, but A) No one even listens to the dept of health and B) You'd figure that fast food would be the strongest interest group and they'd just lobby for high fat type diets.
Though there does seem to be a little bit of cognitive dissonance over the whole 80's saturated fat scare. They basically looked at statistical regressions and said "fat causes weight gain and heart disease". They've never really gotten over this neurosis. So rather than admit they are wrong and explain to everyone that eating low fat is still a good idea cus it controls calories, they just tell people to eat less fat.
Current USDA dietary guidelines are based on the flawed notion that cholesterol and saturated fat are unhealthy. They are unrealistic, unworkable, unscientific and impractical; they have resulted in widespread nutrient deficiencies and contributed to a proliferation of obesity and degenerative disease, including problems with growth, behavior and learning in children. The US government is promoting a lowfat, plant-based diet that ignores the vital role animal protein and fats have played in human nutrition throughout the ages. The pyramid with its strictures against fat consumption does not recognize variations in human metabolism. Recommendations for fat restriction are predicated on the assumption that fat causes weight gain and heart disease; several recent studies have shown that that restriction of natural fats actually leads to more obesity in both children and adults, while the refined carbohydrates, polyunsaturated and trans fats that frequently replace natural saturated fats contribute to weight gain and chronic disease. Restriction of animal fats in children leads increased markers for heart disease and to deficiencies of vitamins A, D and K2, needed for growth, strong bones, immunity, neurological function, and protection from tooth decay.
Unfortunately this is what happens when families delegate their responsiblity for nutrition to the State. It sells its advice to the highest bidder and naturally, in an economy dominated by corporate monopolies funded by the inflation from fractional reserve banking, the guidelines are designed to promote the products of commodity agriculture. The products of mixed family farms which built the nation, from where the Founding Fathers were born and raised do not get a look in because they are the natural competition to commodity agriculture.
Read more here: http://www.westonaprice.org/basics/comments-on-the-usda-dietary-guidelines
-------------------
Here in Britain, we had no dietary guidelines prior to the World War's. That was the perogative of the family unit. After the malnutrition experienced then we created new guidelines which encouraged more meat, dairy and egg consumption and restriction of carbohydrates to loose weight, and children were given a pint of full fat milk each day at school, paid for via taxes.
That guidance continued until about 1983 before which one could not purchase skimmed milk. We then adopted the US Govt's guidelines being propagated by the World Health Organization which are now formulated into European Treaties on obesity.
"The previous nutritional advice in the UK to limit the intake of all carbohydrates as a means of weight control now runs counter to current thinking and contrary to the present proposals for a nutrition education policy for the population as a whole..... The problem then becomes one of achieving both a reduction in fat intake to 30% of total energy and a fall in saturated fatty acid intake to 10%." (Proposals for nutritional guirelines for Health Education in Britain 1983)
And so started the obesity epidemic
To ask the question of why they did this, ask who benefits.
The guidelines push us towards grain consumption. The grain industry is so productive now that it produces more than we need, at lower quality than the consumer would normally demand. Absent market intervention via foreign aid, bio-fuel mandates, national grain reserves (grain mountains), and encouragement of domestic consumption via dietary guidelines. Absent that, the price of intensely farmed grains would fall below the cost of production triggering market mechanisms which would cause the bankruptcy of some of the grain cartel players, leaving only higher quality grain producers in business.
Grain is important to corporations and government because it is an internationally tradable commodity which lasts long periods. Growing grain is like growing money. It is a quasi form of money. For example the Romans battled the British to plough fields and plant grain rather than produce dairy and meat because the latter could not be traded easily around the Empire. The situation is identical today.
The power to grow unlimited grain is similar to theFederal Reserve printing unlimited number of dollars. Just as the government requires legal tender laws and more to force demand for dollars, so too must they force individuals to consume more and more grains to give high volumes of poor quality grains a high price. Indeed, being into grains is a hedge against dollar devaluation because, regardless of the quantity of grain being produced by Monsanto, et al. it will still not keep pace with dollar devaluation so, grain values will rise in an inflationary period, hedging the government's exposure to a devaluing dollar.
Think of grains as a currency and you understand why they are being forced upon us. Look at the history of empires using grain as currency and you will see that this goes back millenia, particularly when an Empire runs out of gold.
Polyunsaturated oils and margarines favored are produced from GRAINS
The starch and carbs promoted by the food pyramid are produced from GRAINS
GRAIN fed animals tend to be leaner and lower in fat than grass fed heritage breeds.
Also, with low fat dairy, the industry can cream off the cream, selling skim milk for the price of whole milk, ensuring double profit when they get malnourished women craving butterfat in icecream and chocolates.
And then, there are the processed alternatives to salt, like MSG, encouraged by the low salt brigade.
So you always see corporations in the background trying to replaces traditional foods with their newfangled products. Just as how Du-Pont got hemp made illegal so that they could flog artificial plastic thread to a public which was previously self sufficient in fibre for clothes and other fabric. Its just crony capitalism, aka fascism, all over again. But this time, with food, the public get very, very sick. Which big pharma loves, so maybe they are part of it also?
Biggest issue is that our schools and other government facilities are forced, via Federal Grants to comply with the USDA's dietary guidelines. No wonder children then crave the crap in vending machines, because they are malnourished. The Federal Govt has used the Federal School Lunches program to force their corporatist dietary guidelines upon the childen of America, with horrific consequences.
Sieben wrote the following post at Wed, Sep 14 2011 10:14 PM: Because science doesn't really have a good answer for what the "best" diet is. Actually they've just found out that within reason, basically nothing matters other than calories.
-------------------------
Well, this logic ignores that calories, in the form of protein, are used for many bodily processes other than energy, and that excess protein is excreted in the form of urea. Excess carbs are stored as body fat. Similarly, saturated fat is a major component of most of the body's organs. For example, cook marrowbone and you will discover that the marrow is almost entirely saturated fat. It is the same thing with the brain and many other organs and, saturated fat tends to concentrate around the organs, particularly the heart and kidneys, just go ask your local butcher for kidneys with the fat still attached and you will see what I mean. Saturated fat is also the the major component in the cell wall along with cholesterol. Therefore, not all calories of saturated fat are used for energy, and fatty acids in animal fats tend to stimulate metabolism. This forms a homeostatic system whereby the more saturated fats we consume, the more energy we burn, meaning that the consumption of saturated fats tends to normalise body mass.
In contrast, carbohydrates are only used for energy, in the form of glucose, and take many minerals and vitamins to be metabolized properly, many more than for protein and animal fats, which tends to be sluggish on metabolism, leading to slow burn and a tendancy to store energy from carbs in body fat. And of course you get the roller coaster insulin response if you have too many refined carbs.
This is why those on a low carb, high fat/protein diet tend to loose weight. It is why lots of saturated fat from coconut oil tends to cause weight loss, because fats stimulate metabolism whilst carbs tend to do the opposite. Of course, the body, with sufficient nutrients, can healthily consume a portion of its calories in carbs, but modern diets are high in refined carbs which lack the minerals and vitamins the body requires to metabolise them, which is why they are particularly sluggish on metabolism and tend to particularly cause weight gain.
This is why the calorie theory of weight gain misinterprets the laws of thermodynamics, namely ignoring that the body is a dynamic system that metabolises different calories in different ways.
So Sieben is wrong in saying that simple calorie restriction works, because, counter to intuition, one finds that obese individuals tend to have mineral and vitamin deficiencies, because a person must be well nourished in order that they burn off the food they consume, because metabolism requires nutrients. The solution therefore is a nutrient dense diet without refined carbohydrates and, with restricted access to carbs if weight loss is required. It is only possible to reduce carbs and maintain nutrient density if protein and fats are consumed in liberal quantities, otherwise you will see the typical yo-yo-ing between diet and uncontrolled indulgence, and between weight loss and wieght gain.
This video of Zoe Harcombe goes into the science of it: http://vimeo.com/26994290
Sieben. Please provide some studies to prove your assertion that calories are the only thing that matter, regardless of the calorie type. I seek an equal playing field here. Before you ask for studies from me, the video above from Zoe Harcombe is full of them, as is her book "The Obesity Epidemic", also check out theobesityepidemic.org and, the USDA Press Release by Sally Fallon is fully referenced if you follow the link on that post.
Oh, and another thing. It is well known that THE BRAIN consumes half the calories that a human consumes, and it primarily requires and is primarily comprised of saturated fats, discounting water of course. The myelin sheath around the brain cell is primarily comprised of cholesterol also. This is another example of why exercise alone is not the answer because half of our metabolism is for the benefit of our brain, and metabolism rates are not only based on activity, but on cells having the correct nutrients to carry out the process. If a calorie restricted diet lacks the required nutrients, metabolism will reduce faster than calorific intake, even if physical activity increases, because half of the metabolism is being carried out by cells which have nothing to do with physical activity. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to sustain enhanced physical activity on a calorie restricted diet that causes nutrient deficiencies.
"Yet even the amount of cholesterol found in three to four eggs per day produces no change in blood cholesterol levels in 70 percent of the population, as shown in randomized, placebo-controlled trials"
Correct. Aubrey de Grey's book Theory of Aging has nice chapter about this!
Cholesterol induced clots have to do with rate of intake given genetics of the person. Some people cannot process much at all, and molecule that is supposed to do processing causes clumping and then lesions, but many people are not significantly affected by even large quantities of continuous cholesterol intake.
(De Grey however believes that this has to do with mitochondrial DNA mutation whereas I agree with more modern telomeres and chromomeres theory, which seems to have more a priori and experimental evidence. Even Robert Rosen's purely mathematical theorem is better. But that is beside the point.)
Phil Ridley:Sieben. Please provide some studies to prove your assertion that calories are the only thing that matter, regardless of the calorie type.
Here's a comparison of 4 different diets varying along nutrient type and quality produce similar average weight loss results.
Here's a study showing that overfeeding induces insulin resistance (diabetes) and leptin resistence (appetite dysregulation).
Here's a study showing that high fat diets (which are high in calories) lead to weight gain. But you don't care about any of those because they invalidate your religion. Good job.
Phil Ridley,
You can't post copyrighted articles in their completeness. You can quote three paragraphs MAXIMUM.
Sieben,
Can you calm down a little bit. It doesn't matter how someone else is posting in regards what your standards should be.
Nielsio:Can you calm down a little bit. It doesn't matter how someone else is posting in regards what your standards should be.
Whether or not you owe him courtesy is your private business. Whether you owe this community courtesy is my business.
Nielsio:Whether you owe this community courtesy is my business.
Maybe you should think how it comes off to other visitors when they see people resorting to such low grade interaction.
If this forum software weren't broken, I would temp-ban you, but alas I cannot.
"then the USDA can probably figure out that people need to eat less calories."
Sieben, its not about eating a certain number of calories. Its about what you're eating. Fake food vs real food. Real food is good for you, fake food is not. The USDA confuses the subject more by getting people into thinking saturated fat is bad for you, when it isn't. That's my point. The study they used to originate this idea was FIXED. That is a problem. They need to correct this. One conclusion I see for them not correcting it is money. People in the grain industry lobbying them to keep these guidelines going. That's obviously bad for the people in many ways, not to mention a waste of tax money.
More to the point, shouldn't there be competition of ideas, rather than government claiming monopoly on truth?
And, who's body is it anyway? What business is it of government to tell me what to eat and what not to eat.
And, how can there be one diet for a diverse nation? This form of central planning, like their economic planning, assumes a one size fits all, which physicians will tell you is not realistic.
And whilst you and I can choose to ignore the USDA, children are being subjected to their guidelines via Federal Grants which require complaince with the Food Pyramid. In Illinois they even go so far as to not allow parents in some schools to let kids bring their own packed lunch!!
@Sieben
If only everyone thought Phil was a woman, then your insults would go unnoticed, and apparently it wouldn't be a poor reflection of the community to visitors.
It also helps if you're a moderator. Then you could just ban him because you don't like him.
Nielsio:Maybe you should think how it comes off to other visitors when they see people resorting to such low grade interaction.
Nielsio:If this forum software weren't broken, I would temp-ban you, but alas I cannot.
If I came back the same thing would just happen all over again.
limitgov:Sieben, its not about eating a certain number of calories
limitgov:The USDA confuses the subject more by getting people into thinking saturated fat is bad for you, when it isn't. That's my point. The study they used to originate this idea was FIXED. That is a problem
limitgov:One conclusion I see for them not correcting it is money. People in the grain industry lobbying them to keep these guidelines going.
limitgov:That's obviously bad for the people in many ways,
limitgov:not to mention a waste of tax money.
Sieben, I'd rather you weren't banned if you could be civil, because your questions and statements encourage good debate. I didn't come here expecting everybody to agree with me. I just wish you didn't have to add an insult to every question or crossed wire.
Back on topic, here are some books on obesity recommended by the Foundation which utilize low carb diets which do not restrict fat intake. In particular, the Eat Fat, Loose Fat book was cited in a recent Lew Rockwell podcast. I'd add Zoe Harcombe's book on obesity to the list if you want a more technical book that pulls apart public policy:
Actually Sieben, the USDA recommend a diet high in grains and starchy vegetables. These are all broken down into glucose, which leads to weight gain. You could eat tons of potatoes, white pasta and bread, be in accordance with the guidelines and put on a heap of weight.
So its not only about eating wholefoods if you are heavy on grains and starch.
Here is the food pyramid, with 6-12 servings of grain!! Much of the rest of the diet is fruit and vegetables, leaving only 10% for saturated fat and very limited space for protein and fat from meat and diary.
The carbs in the three dominant groups are all broken down into glucose, which is only used for energy or stored as fat, and fruit is particularly good for putting on weight. Note, in nature, animals feast on fruit and grain in the early fall to fatten up for the winter. We are not supposed to do that all year!! And the govt is letting businesses say that refined fruit juice provides a serving, and that is the sort of thing they get away with at schools, allowing refined counterfeits, even if it was enough to have ratio's as unbalanced as the above.
Who cares what FDA says. They would never recommend any diet which is heavy meat. Because its not proletarian cost wise. Only reason.
According to Bob Fogel, higher consumption of meat in US and Britain, relative France or China, is what has contributed 25-50% of producitivty over last 250 years, by increasing number of people who could work longer hours, and reducing stunting.
Let's pose a more fun question (fun as I see it, being professionally experimental scientist). How exactly are ideal studies going to be done? I mean studies about nutrition, not economics: Fogel had already covered economic aspect and gotten his Nobel prize.
In another thread I posted my diet. I myself put much no faith in virtually all purely nutritional studies, except where they agree with my diet. Why?
I'll tell you:
What kind of group of researchers would do a large study, over many years, where they PAY test subject to stuff themselves full of blue fin, filet steaks, and cavier? That stuff, in quantities that are required for satiety is just EXPENSIVE.
One person, no problem, at least in Midwest. (My diet fails cost-wise, say, in New York City.)
1000 people study: not going to happen, Midwest or New York or wherever.
All I do is concentrate on sharp flavors which do not require complex or taste enhancement chemicals (because eating lots of anything common to all food that you eat lessens reaction reflex, and then for next few days tastes are not as sharp, because of Sokolov's law of reflexes, which is just physiological proof of Gossen's law).
As for the rest, I merely keep in mind calories.
All I do is eat tastiest food that is actually tasty without requiring taste enhancers. Taste enhancers level differences between stimuli, which is bad for having biggest satisfaction for your diet, all week long, because they are common factor in so much food. Same thing for ingredients of sauces.
That's it. Turns out, tastiest food combinations with sharp differences in taste, to preserve reaction and pleasure, are also highest density of energy, and are mostly animal or fish products.
Why is this conversation so bitter about nutritional value?
No one will actually do the studies that would really prove anything.
On other hand, studies about reflexes and basic ideas about what amount of calories and vitamins you need would pretty much give you a very nice diet.
Pavlov's rule: eat tastiest food which is actually sharply tasty. Period.
EDIT: I have way too much time on my hands at work, now that I think about how long this post is... .
As said, Dr Price's book is a huge study, which does provide real data:
- http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
And folk in the Weston A Price Foundation have provided some good info about their kids:
- http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/healthy-baby-photo-gallery-2011-2012
Also, see this study of folk with nutrient dense diets:
- http://www.westonaprice.org/health-issues/pilot-research-study-live-blood-analysis-of-adults
"Where are your studies about the efficacy of eating the "right" foods? Here's a study showing that for 3 meals,"
honestly, I do't have the time to look through your stuff. There is so much info on the damage fake food does to your body and so much info on the healing good food does, you just merely have to do some google searching.. Take for example, doctors and nutrionists who are curing people with Diabetes Type II with nothing but raw foods. in some cases in 2 weeks!
Surely, you don't believe beef from McDonalds which is treated with ammonia and full of growth hormones and antibiotics is just as good for you as grass fed beef full of more omega fatty acids and no growth hormones or antibiotics? Do you really need a study for that? Really?
Do you really need some scientists to tell you that eating white processed flour with almost no nutrional value is the same as eating raw organic vegetables? Really? Come on dude. Wake up. Real food vs fake food. Of course there is a difference, how else do normal people get diabetes type II? And then, how else do they get cured by eating raw foods? Its not calories. You really need a scientists or doctor to walk you through that?
So, you can study folk who choose to eat nutrient dense foods, and Dr Price's work is probably the best study we have of that. Just get a bunch of members of the Weston A Price Foundation alongside family members of theirs who eat the standard american diet. Then you have a study, right there.
Phil Ridley:Sieben, I'd rather you weren't banned if you could be civil, because your questions and statements encourage good debate. I didn't come here expecting everybody to agree with me. I just wish you didn't have to add an insult to every question or crossed wire.
But whaddaya gonna do
Phil Ridley:Back on topic, here are some books on obesity recommended by the Foundation which utilize low carb diets which do not restrict fat intake. In particular, the Eat Fat, Loose Fat book was cited in a recent Lew Rockwell podcast. I'd add Zoe Harcombe's book on obesity to the list if you want a more technical book that pulls apart public policy:
Phil Ridley:Actually Sieben, the USDA recommend a diet high in grains and starchy vegetables.
Phil Ridley:The carbs in the three dominant groups are all broken down into glucose,
Phil Ridley:We are not supposed to do that all year!!
limitgov:There is so much info on the damage fake food does to your body and so much info on the healing good food does, you just merely have to do some google searching.
limitgov:Take for example, doctors and nutrionists who are curing people with Diabetes Type II with nothing but raw foods. in some cases in 2 weeks!
limitgov:Surely, you don't believe beef from McDonalds which is treated with ammonia and full of growth hormones and antibiotics is just as good for you as grass fed beef full of more omega fatty acids and no growth hormones or antibiotics? Do you really need a study for that? Really?
Like I wouldn't go out of my way to put oral growth-hormone in my body, but I also couldn't tell you how bad it is. It may actually be relatively harmless. Does that make sense? You can make dietary choices without spazzing out about ZOMG PROCESSED CHEMICALS and pretending like that's as good as real evidence. I don't know how bad a lot of chemicals are.
Has it ever crossed your mind that some of the "artificial" chemicals might actually be beneficial? Impossible. "Artificial" just means "bad" to you people.
limitgov:Do you really need some scientists to tell you that eating white processed flour with almost no nutrional value is the same as eating raw organic vegetables? Really? Come on dude. Wake up. Real food vs fake food.
Sieben, I personally do not support intermittent fasting, and your comments are beginning to sound a bit silly.
No phil. The biggest way in which historical man's diet differed from modern diets are seasonal periods of starvation. You want to spend all this time and energy crying about how plant fats are different from animal fats, but they're even more different than NOTHING. And NOTHING is what cavemen ate for months at a time (okay maybe some berries, but extreme caloric deprivation). Caloric restriction has been shown to improve your lifespan. So whaddaya gonna do? There's A) Paleo evidence for it and B) Scientific evidence for it, but you're going to ignore it because it doesn't fit your personal religion.
Actually, this is wrong. Dr Price saw isolated people's eating much as they would have for thousands of years, including hunter gatherers. They had elaborate ways of preserving foods, such as curing meat, fermenting vegetables as sauerkraut, drying meats, making pemmican, fermenting and freezing. Pemmican, for example, is a blend of cured meat and fat that has been demonstrated to last for 30 years and stay safe. Through traditions, and artisan methods of food preservation, communities and families would have abundance throughout the year, planning ahead for risks.
It is these methods which differentiate humanity from beasts.
Under anarchy, communities and traditions kick in to produce well planned life patterns that provide for risk and future, creating abundance.
Zzzzzzzzzzz I don't care what Dr. Crazy observed. Merely being able to preserve food doesn't mean there's enough food to eat yearround. Here I'ma give you some citations so you can ignore them, but maybe you'll realize deep down that you're wrong.
Here's a source (yeah its an article, but it has a link to the research in it) showing that historical man was frequently very close to starvation, and would in fact cannibalize his fellow man if necessary. It makes perfect sense evolutionarily speaking, but I seriously doubt you would advocate either constant near-starvation or cannibalism. Because you just cherry pick which parts of the historical lifestyle you like, and ignore the ones you don't like. Like an ideologue. Here's a list of famines. You will notice the death toll is sometimes in the millions. I quote from the opening: "Between 108 BC and 1911 AD there were no fewer than 1,828 major famines in China," So this is like, MAJOR famines that affected ENTIRE regions. Let alone localized famines affecting individual village/tribe units.
And here's another source confirming what any third grader could guess; that historical man frequently died because of lack of food/water. So again, the greatest way in which modern diets differ from historical diets is that they didn't have enough food. They were under intense calorie restraints. So not only should you starve yourself if you take historical diets seriously, you should also pause and realize that what I have been saying ALL ALONG is CALORIE RESTRICTION. So I'm actually more paleo than you. A guy who eats nothing but twinkies for 1500 calories all day is more paleo than you. Again, you just cherry pick whatever pseudo/fake-evidence tells you what you want to do. Bla bla bla religious zealot.
Yes, many people have lived under tyranny where much of the wealth is taxed and they cannot provide for risk and famine. Dr Price found that isolated tribes had TEN TIMES more fat soluble vitamins in their diet. Their diets were nutrient dense.
Sure, peasants in medieval England starved, but that was because they lived under tyranny.
In contrast, isolated people's who are not taxed a major portion of their output can store plenty of food for most eventualities, but if you have the King's men coming around stealing from your food stores, then sure, you will starve at times of lack.