It is reasonable to consider such hypotheses, but until you have some evidence it isn't very convincing. It's on about the same low level of intellectual rigor as assuming that "progress" is all wonderful. Neither good-old-days nor progress-is-always-good are valid modes of logical inference.
Take, for instance, the farming-based diet that our ancestors have eaten for millenia. In fact, there is evidence that it was worse than what went before. But there is also evidence that modern diets are healthier (in terms of robust development to biological potential). It isn't all one way or the other.
Oh, absolutely there was peaks and troughs in terms of the healthiness of historic diets; the Romans noted the German diet produced a very obvious superior outcome. A more recent trough occurred in the late 1800s/early 1900s: mid-Victorians lived much longer, and grew much taller, than late Victorians in England. We've only relatively recently recovered from that (mostly - not in terms of life expectancy at age 5, but certainly on other factors like height.)
You definitely have to take a very expansive view.
It is reasonable to consider such hypotheses, but until you have some evidence it isn't very convincing. It's on about the same low level of intellectual rigor as assuming that "progress" is all wonderful. Neither good-old-days nor progress-is-always-good are valid modes of logical inference.
Take, for instance, the farming-based diet that our ancestors have eaten for millenia. In fact, there is evidence that it was worse than what went before. But there is also evidence that modern diets are healthier (in terms of robust development to biological potential). It isn't all one way or the other.
Here's a reference to a survey article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21507735/