There are two prominent examples of health improving in the face of a declining standard of living: Denmark in World War I, and Norway in the World War II. Denmark (though neutral) was subjected to the Allied blockade of the continent. The entire country was put on a lacto-vegetarian diet. Death rates dropped by 30%. Norway, occupied by the Nazis, also saw its deaths due to circulatory diseases drop dramatically. In both cases, when the war ended, people resumed eating their normal diet and the death rate went back up.

Norway under the nazis was effectively put on an "anti-Atkins" diet: Very little fat, but enough carbohydrates. "Fat hunger" is a phenomenon known to many old people, and whatever temporary advantages you'd get from turnip steak, you'd probably lose from the craving for fatty foods you aquired when they were scarce.

A far more important factor was that tobacco was in short supply, and alcohol consumption at an all-time low. A prominent alcohol researcher in Norway has commented that today, we pay ourselves out of our alcohol problems with expensive treatment facilities and social services to take care of injuries, neglected children, traffic accidents and all the other unpleasant side-effects. A hundred years ago, that was not an affordable option, so there was a strong social movement to resist and restrict alcohol instead (Teetotalism).

I think that in the current depression/long emergency, how our societies deal with alcohol will matter a lot. Will we do as countless tribal people have done when encountering new, unpleasant realities - try to drink ourselves out of our sorrows? Or will we do as the Sami did after Læstadius, harden ourselves against destructive influences, and purge our culture of the traditions which we don't see a use for in the new reality?

There's no question in my mind that alcohol is a significant health problem. However, it appears that in terms of what was studied in Norway (circulatory diseases, as I recall), alcohol may actually have had a slightly beneficial effect, because alcohol would presumably make heart attacks less likely and produces a mild elevation in HDL. On the other hand, excessive drinking raises the risk of strokes and non-circulatory diseases such as breast cancer. I'm not prepared to argue that the effect of alcohol on circulatory disease in Norway was a "wash," but I think alcohol was at least likely not the only factor. There are enough other problems with alcohol to justify minimizing or eliminating alcohol in one's diet.

There are a lot of complicated interactions here because the "civilized diet" typically has a lot of things wrong with it and it's often hard to tease out what exactly is causing the problems. So I'd be happy to just say that refined carbohydrates, meat consumption, and alcohol are all significant health problems. The important point is that diet has important effects on disease, and post-peak the decline of this "industrialized" diet may have significant health benefits.

There is also the point that factory farms have significant negative public health effects independent of actually eating the stuff they produce. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and avian flu, are being promoted largely through the excess use of antibiotics in factory farms in the U. S. and elsewhere. I understand the EU now prohibits the routine use of antibiotics to promote growth, I'm not sure how this is working or how much it has resulted in a decline in the use of antibiotics (are they just getting around this by justifying antibiotics for disease control, for example?). If H5N1 virus were to become contagious among humans, you might have to go back to the 14th century to find a historical precedent. So if post-peak the factory farming system were to collapse, you'd see less meat eating anyway, but that would probably have a beneficial health effect overall.

Keith

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and avian flu, are being promoted largely through the excess use of antibiotics in factory farms in the U. S. and elsewhere.

Nonsense! Avian flu has absolutely nothing to do with antibiotic use (or abuse). I was in agreement with you until you said that.

Agreed. I should have said something like, "antibiotic-resistant bacteria and avian flu are being promoted largely through the excess use of antibiotics in factory farms on the one hand, and by factory-farmed birds generally on the other." Flu is a virus, not a bacterium.