I've explained my logic.

One doesn't have to be a machine learning expert to notice the correlation between health issues and overconsumption of processed/junk foods. Traditional foods, on the contrary, are evolved, so causation is not in the base ingredients, but in processing and substitutes.

One sees what one wants to see. There's also a correlation of consumption of any meat and health issues. I don't claim to know what is the real causation here, but presumably it's more complicated than "processed==bad", especially as "processed" has no good definition and is mostly used as a fnord to make people uncomfortable.

>There's also a correlation of consumption of any meat and health issues.

Nope. Meat is just an evolutionary adaptation which allows the human race to inhabit northern regions.

There are obviously some crosscultural differences in comsumption of meat, but there are no replicable studies that meat eaters of, say, Japan, Middle East, Greece, Georgia or Nepal are worse off than strict vegetarians of India.

This adaptation happened, perhaps, at Homo Erectus time, so, do not worry, everything is already OK.

What we never had in our long past are supplements and substitutes. One should look here.

We also never in our long past lived past 60.

I should have put supplements in double quotes.