Green Aura wrote:Dunno Dunc. Most nutritionists tell us that if we get a good, balanced diet we shouldn't need supplements.
My point is that that's a very big if. A great many people survived (and still do survive) on what we would regard as lousy diets. Sure, improving the general diet would be the ideal
solution, but have you ever heard the saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"? Until we manage to completely eliminate poverty, ignorance and laziness, lots of people are going to have sub-optimal diets. I'm not holding my breath...
gregorach wrote:The idea that pre-modern people were all paragons of health
It does rather depend on what era you are talking about Dunc.
If you go back about 2 generations to my grandparents for instance...
Yeah, and in roughly the same period, severe vitamin D deficiencies were endemic in many places.
I'm not saying that nobody
had a good diet, I'm saying that many
people didn't, and that nutritional deficiencies are not just
a modern phenomenon. I'm not saying that absolutely everybody
nutritionally deficient - but nevertheless, many
were. Nor am I arguing that nutritional supplementation is always essential
. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that "pre-modern people were all
paragons of health enjoying healthy balanced diets". Sure, some
of them were, but lots of them weren't.
Whether this sort of nutritional supplementation is generally
a good idea or not is something you'd need really big, long-term population-level studies to answer. However, I do know that I've never seen anyone with rickets, but if I had been born a hundred years earlier, I almost certainly would have.
It's not all black and white.