I too have noticed a striking difference between health, lifespan, infant mortality etc in my family depending on where they lived in the same generall area.
I don't think it had much to do with diet or money.
Those working class folk who lived up on high ground , on the tops as we say locally, here in West Yorks in the 19thC fared far, far better than their exact counterparts who lived down in the valleys, in crowded dwellings. Same jobs, same money, same social class.Huge families of healthy children were raised up in the hills, whereas down below babies died frequently, adults often didn't make 40.
The difference seems to me to be simply that if you lived on the tops, your water came directly from the sky, no chance of pollution and infection en route down into the valleys. The fresh, cold air and winds gave TB germs little chance to breed. You would have had tiny bit of ground to grow a few veg, hens and a communal pig.
In some modest ways, if you were working class in the Holme Valley from 1800 onwards, you had a bit of a dream-ticket, actually. Work and ( not very big) wages were available in the growing wool textile mills - for men and, significantly, women. Hard work in harsh circumstances, but reliable and near at hand. The big Plus was that you did not live in crowded disease-ridden cities. You were in the countryside, or very near. Yes, workers may have had to walk a few miles down to the woollen mills and dyehouses but they reaped the benefits of healthier rural life without the insecure poverty of agricultural labourers.
