I hate this argument. Usually people are talking about synthetic or non-naturally occurring compounds ancillary to the reason for eating the food.

In other words, are you eating processed cheese for the protein, or for the potassium sorbate? Only one of these is a "chemical" is the vernacular.

Polio is not a disease caused by malnutrition. Also, your ancestors probably did not die of it -- it mostly affected young people, so people who died from it usually didn't have descendants.

Quibbling aside, health in general was certainly much worse in our great-grandparents' days, but for those who weren't straight up underfed, nutrition was probably not worse. I'm not sure it was as magically better as some would have you believe, but there is decent evidence that traditional diets were more-or-less fine, and that the modern diet has something wrong with it.

No, a heart attack at 48 and cancer at 91. This data tells you little

Edit: Sorry, misread. All I know is my great grandfather was a pony express rider and got colon cancer

It's only bad advice if they died of malnutrition

They still exist. Eat locally from farmers. All my beef is grass fed (which have higher omega 3's), for example.

And if you can't because of where you live, there's a good chance neither could your grandparents had if they lived there as well.

Do you have any evidence? I'd love to see a comparison of nutrients in produce over the decades.

Any peer reviewed, legitimate studies that suggest GM corn causes problems with beef? It's popular to critique GM, but it often seems like a knee-jerk reaction rather than based on actual scientific studies. And by studies, I don't mean an article in Mother Jones, but actual science.

yeah, the apples of today are so different from my grandpa's apple that a bottle of soy sludge is a much better choice nutritionally.

Learn to hunt. Its rewards go beyond better personal nutrition.

> Not possible, unfortunately

My wife raises our livestock and garden while I work. Yesterday I had a sandwich and I know where every ingredient came from(our yard). Look, it's not impossible. It just requires you to look outside of your modern context.

What's your point? My great grandparents were Italian and Irish.

Glycemic index means nothing. Cake has a low glycemic index (someting like 30, depending on fat content). Oatmeal has a higher glycemic index (55). Does that mean we should stop eating oatmeal and substitute it with cake?

Yes. It's like comparing snow to climate.

Yeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful the meat substitutes will pan out. We haven't figured out cancer yet. You're betting on us figuring out food?

Edit: because cancer is complex, the same a food and nutrition

Where do you see that? It only claims it's a meal substitute, which it is. The only other recommendation I could find was this:

> As a nutritionally complete food source, Soylent should be considered a food product just like any other. You can include Soylent in your diet for as long as you’d like, in any amount that suits your needs. There is no right or wrong amount of Soylent to eat - the whole idea is to find a balance that works for you.