Re:Dietary sweetener sucralose is a negative modulator of T ...
by makeitdouble on Monday March 20, 2023 @12:19PM
(#35233885)
What you meant is probably more complex and needs more context than you are giving credit to.
You probably have a very specific image of what people ate a century ago, but I wouldn't expect that you assumed rice, beans and fish, with as much fat as affordable. For better or worse, there's little "you know what I mean" culture common ground on HN I think.
> The bottom line is: if you couldn't grow it/make it/process it a hundred years ago you most likely don't want to ingest that every day
That's kind of an amish approach to food. I'd prefer to benefit from better food than a century ago (we have a ton of better crops, better processed products, tastier varieties etc .), but at least it's a pretty clear position you have.
The bottom line is: if you couldn't grow it/make it/process it a hundred years ago you most likely don't want to ingest that every day
If what you eat contain 50 ingredients, 45 of which you can't identify, and you couldn't make it yourself at home with basic ingredients and utensils it most likely isn't any good for you
> regular people ate a lot of junk as well. If they could afford to.
20% of the population is obese before hitting adulthood, 70% of americans are obese or overweight, the leading cause of death is cardiovascular disease, lifestyle related cancer show no sign of decline quite the opposite, &c.
We came a long way, we now know what kill us, people don't die of starvation, but they still die of malnutrition. There is a systemic, world wide issue with food, a very very bad one