Excerpt from the Wikipedia page on the Antonine plague (165-180 AD) [1]:
A good indicator of nutrition and the disease burden is the average height of the population. The conclusion of the study of thousands of skeletons is that the average Roman was shorter in stature than the people of pre-Roman societies of Italy and the post-Roman societies of the Middle Ages. The view of historian Kyle Harper is that "not for the last time in history, a precocious leap forward in social development brought biological reverses."
That's admittedly a vague quote. But it suggests that Roman civilisation made life shittier than either before or after. Is there a genuine inconsistency with the submission?
I remember reading about a similar dynamic in Harari's 'Sapiens'... the shift to from hunter/gatherer to agriculture being better for 'society' (more people) but worse for the average individual within the society, at least in terms of health (poorer/narrower diet, increased disease, shorter lifespan.)
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague
[edit]
The Wikipedia article has a reference to this article about skeleton height: https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article-abstract/9/1/61/457455... - It apparently improved after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire!