Agreed. The key point in the article is that mid-Victorians had a similar life-expectancy to our own. From there it just assumes that dietary changes are what caused life expectancy to decline, starting in the late-Victorian era. That&#x27;s an awful lot of assuming.<p>The interesting thing to me was not the dietary claims, but the claims about life expectancy. If those are correct, then it does rather strongly suggest that the mid-Victorians were  doing something right that we have now got wrong. Or perhaps just that modern medicine has not done as much to advance life expectancy as is generally thought.