I remember reading somewhere that North Koreans are significantly shorter than South Koreans today because of poor nutrition, but I would think that kind of thing would only matter in the present day across national boundaries. I often hear about how people were shorter in the past due to poor nutrition, but I would think if you were rich enough then getting enough food and the right kind of food wouldn't be a problem, or at least would be less of a problem. So, would there ever have been a measurable difference between the height of richer and poorer people in the past?
North Korea would represent an extreme outlier in these kinds of studies- for most of the pre- Columbian Exchange world the only thing that really separated the upper class from the lower was the volume of food they could eat.
At the same time though, malnourished peasants don't make for good labor, and aside from protection their next most immediate need was food. If there was a nutritionally rooted difference in height, it'd typically be minor unless you're talking about a section of history, or a region which is pretty bad off.
Did you have a particular point in history in mind? Industrial Revolution Britain? Potato Famine Ireland? France during it's revolution?
Jack Weatherford in Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world mentions how the grain heavy diet of the Chinese in comparison to the protein rich diet of the steppe nomads like the Mongols led to like inferior teeth. I can't source it beyond him and I don't know how people feel about the book but I did enjoy it.