For me, it solves the "problem" of getting nutrients fast and effortlessly. When I don't feel like cooking, it allows me to get the energy I need, while avoiding fattening or, generally speaking, poorly nutrient food.

This sounds like a circular problem.

Cooking is not that hard, even if it is just for you on your lonesome.

Really, if you can't be bothered to cook, that should be the time you start scrubbing potatoes and putting together a wholesome and satisfying meal, to actually enjoy it and be incentivised to cook some more.

>Really, if you can't be bothered to cook, that should be the time you start scrubbing potatoes and putting together a wholesome and satisfying meal, to actually enjoy it and be incentivised to cook some more.

This makes no sense. We already established that the person doesn't like cooking and your solution is to... cool anyways? Has it occurred to you that some people simply don't like cooking and/or doesn't place high value on food?

I think the distinction between "processed food" and "ready food" is important here. Not all processed foods are bad - I am not paid to say this, but after doing a lot of preliminary research into Huel some 3 years ago, I've lived off it for weeks at a time when time-constrained or lazy. I usually feel better overall for it (fuller, prolonged energy), which for me, meant less snacking.

On account of the higher carbs, I can't speak so much to their "instant meals", but the powders are a pretty even split of carbs/fats/protein, with the black powder being primarily protein for a slightly higher cost.

the poison is in the dosage.

Processed foods are great and small amounts at infrequent times. But we tend to see them as a fast easy way to fill a hole.

We can't live on raw food. I read a catalog from an "alternative" magazine once, which listed an enormous number of diets and self-help therapies. All raw diet was one of the extremely few (even) they warned against.

It's damn near impossible to not harm your health with an all raw diet.

"Processing" is not the issue. Food seeing the inside of a factory is not what will make you sick. It's what gets put in it. It's the sugar.

I'm pretty sure at this point that the word "processed food" was also a stroke of marketing genius by the shit suggary food lobby. Avoids putting front and center what is it that makes the food bad (it's the sugar), and replace it with a generic scary-sounding word that can be applied to everything, so it diffuses responsibility and hides the actual problem ("See, this shit food uses unprocessed brown cane sugar as its addiction additive. Healthy!")

That's not entirely true. Processed food requires less energy to digest and absorb. Nutritionally it can be exactly the same food but the net calorie intake will be higher for food that has been processed.

We should eat food that our pre-industrial ancestors would recognize.

> Processed food requires less energy to digest and absorb

That's also just a heuristic. To take the most basic example, ice is more processed than water but requires more energy to digest and absorb.

> ice is more processed than water

depends on weather outside.

>That's not entirely true. Processed food requires less energy to digest and absorb. Nutritionally it can be exactly the same food but the net calorie intake will be higher for food that has been processed.

What does this actually amount to though? You might be right in principle but if it's like 50 calories per day then it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Well it's not just the sugars. Processed food gets a lot of preservatives (some natural, some made in a lab) which make the food last longer and "look better". In Bulgaria (I think this is an EU directive though) you can see the preservatives on the nutrition info and they all have an ID (E###). Typically the more Es that something has, the more processed it has been and is seen as less healthy.

Although that’s typically true, a lot of very natural ingredients also have “E numbers” (as we call them in the UK).

For example, E164 is saffron, E290 is carbon dioxide, E901 is beeswax, E913 is lanolin.

Loads of others are also extracts of natural products.

It means it was added to the product.

>preservatives (some natural, some made in a lab) which make the food last longer and "look better"

Any reason to think they're bad aside from a vague sense of "ewww chemicals"?

In some aspects the problem is food processing. A lot of magnesium gets lost when food is processed and prepared. As a result of that magnesium insufficiency and deficiency seem to be rather prevalent.

If the problem was as simple as that, it wouldn't be a problem.

A do-everything multivitamin-and-mineral pill is pennies per day[0], so we could very easily just require them to be added — and in some cases we already have: UK cereals, back when I was there, often advertised "fortified with 7…" (or was it 8?) "…vitamins and minerals".

I got the impression it was a legal requirement they'd tried to pretend was a special feature.

[0] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/285513527

I'm betting the meat lobby, against the rising vegetarian alternatives, but yes.

I don't eat sugar and consider stevia healthier than artificial sweeteners but still processed.