Do you have evidence to support that more sugar and salt is detrimental?

This question doesn't make any sense unless there's a baseline from which 'more' is measured. In my very anecdotal and useless experience of most Americans I know, more sugar would be very bad, and more salt is mostly harmless. But there's obviously levels of both which are too low and too high.

Not sure if you're just trolling. Regarding sugar, processed foods usually are high in high-fructose corn syrup - yes, there evidence that is bad. On youtube, search "sugar bitter truth" for a lecture from U of California.

Regarding salt, "the experts" don't seem so confident on what levels. In the past few years, the daily recommended intake of sodium has increased.

I found the lectures by Robert Lustig to be very convincing. I spent a couple of hours listening and trying as best I could be verify the biological pathways referenced, it all checked out.

I do not 'troll'. It's an open ended question, not a forgone conclusion.

Do you have evidence to support that you do not 'troll'?

Well, trolling is I think largely based on intent.

If one does not believe that they were trolling (i.e. they do not believe that they were doing what trolling is. This is a belief about what they were doing, not a belief about what the word "trolling" means), then that seems like fairly good evidence that they were not trolling.

I don't know what would be a better (and available) measure of one's intent than one's own perception of one's own intent. (Of course, one could imagine that there might be a better source, but in practice I think it is the best evidence we have).

This would only be as convincing to oneself I suppose, but I think that one's memory of one's intent is generally fairly good evidence to present to oneself to show that one was not trolling.

Sugar, fat and salt taste good. That means that humans and animals evolved to seek them out. If they were unequivocally bad for us, we would have evolved to find them disgusting.

We evolved those tastes at a time when 1) those things were much harder to get and b) energy needs were higher due to more physical lifestyles.

If you are burning 5000 calories a day hunting or farming, eat all the sugar and fat you want (and can get by your own efforts). But if you are burning 2000 calories a day sitting at a desk... You can't debate food in a vacuum without considering lifestyle.

So it's okay to drink sea water?

You could probably cook pasta with it.

does it taste good?

Also processed stuff usually doesn't taste as good. The enjoyment you derive from eating contributes to your physical health.

>>Also processed stuff usually doesn't taste as good.

This isn't true. The entire reason there's more salt and sugar in processed foods is to make them taste good. Compare a Snickers bar with broccoli.

Well-prepared broccoli certainly tastes better than a Snickers bar.

Objectively, no. Humans have evolved to enjoy salty and sweet things, due to evolutionary reasons. You may prefer well-prepared broccoli over a Snickers bar, but I can guarantee that that's an acquired taste. 6-month old jesseaustin most likely swung the other way. :)

6-mo me consumed milk, exclusively. b^)

Taste is subjective, can't really make general statements.

Indeed.

By all means, if you think processed food tastes better, then that's what you should be eating, at least as far as good taste -> enjoyment -> good mental health -> good physical health is concerned. But, it's worth your time to do proper comparisons and not write off unfamiliar things.

...to you.