My main point with all this is: food supplies have been driven by civilizations and their processes and not by individuals.
I know what you’re trying to prove.
In this case, most medieval peasants did not survive long enough to pass on their genetics to future offspring.
Most peasants simply died off. Their family lines extinguished. They are, no more.
We are most likely descended from those who descended from royalty, starting with Charlamagne if European or others from other backgrounds, with everybody else withering genetically away, as royalty did not marry commoners as often, and royalty tended to eat better than peasants.
That is to say: We’re more likely to be descended in total from those who had higher caloric diets generation after generation and NOT from medieval peasants, whose family lines died off young and are not as likely to have genetically survived to be represented _at all_ in today’s human
Ok. Let’s do that.
If you’re doing a sun-up-down labor and have a 3800 cal/day diet, who prepares your food?
If you’re working at McDonalds, who prepares your food?
Where is the time to prepare the food spent at in each case?
Fresh foods contain a lot of water, involve a lot of chewing. Processed foods dissolve quickly, don’t require much chewing. Storage can be on a shelf and not require expensive refrigeration. Wonderful modern science lines the shelves of every corner store and kitchen cabinets across the USA. But as a cheap mainstay of diet, it’s not good. But it’s dominating in American culture and has for decades
It could be a just-so story. I won’t die on that hill. But the point of the chewing isn’t the chewing but in the time used to prepare and eat.
European cooking and eating tends to be incorporated as an important part of life. Maybe less now, I don’t know. But traditionally, yes.
So it is not odd if it’s slower and more thorough.
I don’t know about Japanese eating habits.
If you are under a certain income, your simplify your needs. You can’t afford to worry about your health; you have to take care of the needs of the day.
Can’t worry about health in two years if you don’t know if you’ll be living where you are in three weeks. To prorate your life, you need a steady dependable life.
No. It’s because I’ve thought about this topic since I was a teenager collecting money for UNICEF. I heard the BS myth of the “welfare queen” in the 80s and that “single parent homes” were the cause of societies ills and they all just have to pull themselves up from their constant bad choices and that they choose to be poor, choose to have problems, and need to make better choices.
Constant barrage of that stuff from parents in my home town.
Meanwhile, I knew our struggles, I knew the struggles of others growing up that these adults did not know because they were busy pontificating.
I know family stories of being on welfare, dealing with government institutions, being a woman in the times before woman’s lib. How the man’s signature was the only thing that mattered.
I was raised by a single mother.
But I’d hear all this BS. Children of single moms commit more crime, poverty, drugs. People who collect welfare are this-or-that. Lazy unmotivated, need to try harder, cause of their own problems, etc. etc.
Ok. Let’s go with statistics then.
How do you deal with problems of a statistical nature?
Who has that power?
Individuals making choices?
Or governments and corporations who compile such statistics?
Can you see the absolute ABSURDITY of blaming-the-individual for problems that show up statistically?