I resonate with the way you think.

A lot of non-technical people get hung up on the marketing terms than actually thinking through the fundamentals.

For e.g. "Handspun ice-cream! OMG!". Uhh..what difference does it make if it is hand-spun or machine-spun? It is not tool of spinning ice-cream, but what the process is. To majority of non-techy people, processed or machined or anything to do with automating a method is highly repulsive - thanks to the hipster marketing.

The general take away is - "Automated machines will never replace the touch of the hand"... oh really? then how come we can make insanely precise things called semiconductors in almost a completely automated fashion. Some fabs don't even have operators inside, just technicians or engineers. This is an extreme example just to make a point.

Actually I do take issue with your example of grass-fed steak. Not sure why you would think it is not healthy, not even going to debate that. But do not dismiss it thinking the actual grass-feed has no impact. It increases the saturated of the meat of ruminants. If you want to go on a learning trip, look into the research made in the 40s about fattening cattle with saturated vs unsaturated fats.

I think it is a bit meaningless to talk about the merits or demerits of particular ingredients (other than the obviously bad such as rancid fats, pollution by heavy metals, or high in toxins) Humans evolved to eat a varied diet and the more variety of nutrient dense food you have the better off you will be. The main issue with nutrition is how can we teach people to eat better while keeping the production costs down.

I recognize I'm bloody lucky to be able to afford the food I get to eat every week, but just thinking of the resources required to have everyone eat this way is very hard. How sustainable would it be for everyone to eat fresh seafood every weekend or constantly import oranges to northern latitudes? Part of the problem is that people choosing processed food leads to an increasing divide in costs between the processed and the freshly prepared, only due to economies of scale. And it will only keep getting worse. My parents' generation all had fresh milk delivered daily at their homes (relatively affordable even for the middle class), today how many people could afford something like that? It took only a little time when cheaper options appeared for it to become uneconomical and nowadays even if you wanted to pay a premium, how big would it be?

A big mistake is to only focus on macronutrients when micronutrients are as important. Even then, it is a relatively unexplored field, how many chemical species you think an apple has? We have explored relatively few classes and particular examples of vitamins and it would be misleading to just go by the RDA of a few classes of chemicals which were explored because of simplicity, technical development at the time? How many vitamin E analogues are in a kernel of wheat? When did we stop doing this basic research into food and nutrition? There are millions of different molecules in natural food, how much is destroyed by processing? Like the homogenization of milk, which is practically very vigorous stirring and yet it destroys lactoferrin.

I generally agree with your points, especially with the flagrant discrimination between processed and unprocessed food, but I think you're being unproductively predantic, especially if it comes to what might be useful for the "general population". My impression is that it's easiest to be consistent if you adopt a fairly simple (unnuonced) set of principles that guide your doet and lifestyle, then adapt it as you gain more control. Exercise good, processed bad, is probably a great place to start for most people —including the author if they hadn't already done the research. As a Canadian, even though we get a lot of stuff from the states AND even though the states has some kind of "added sugar" labelling, I was pretty disgusted to see some things in supermarkets. Yes Walmart has a pretty decent grocery section now, but it sits next to McDonald's where you can get 30 chicken nuggets for $10, the boxed foods aisles that have an exhaustingly low supply of no sugar options, and the fried chicken section where $3 goes seemingly a lot farther if you don't think about it.

> Does that make McDonald's a healthy option? Absolutely not. But why is McDonald's unhealthy? It's because the food they serve is unhealthy. It's not that the food that is served at McDonald's is unhealthy because McDonald's is unhealthy.

It sounds to me like this is the crux of your argument.

I think I'd agree and hopefully add some clarifying points.

1. Processing

Processing doesn't necessarily make things less healthy. It depends on the type of processing and what is being processed.

If you blend a steak, it isn't less good for you (although it is more susceptible to food poisoning). Adding heat to things like meat can actually make them more bio-available since they're easier to digest. Adding heat to vegetables can break down certain vitamins and make the result less healthy.

Additionally, heating food in certain ways can make it less healthy because of the cooking process. Anything that chars the food or introduces partially combusted hydrocarbons (burned cooking oil, grilling/smoking, etc.) adds carcinogens to the food.

2. Macro-nutrient profile

Food satiety is relatively well understood: protein, water and fiber are all appetite suppressants. People need a certain amount of fat and probably desire at least a small amount of carbs (although the last part can be overcome in some people).

For a sedentary person, a diet high in carbs and fat is probably not good, as it will result in weight gain.

For someone with higher energy needs - say someone building a trail through the woods with a mattock - they may need to eat 6000 Calories per day just to maintain their body weight.

For a sedentary person, a diet high in protein will be distasteful and probably wasteful.

For professional athletes competing in strength sports, they may eat over 2g / kg of body mass of protein as part of a diet tailored to their goals.

Broadly speaking, in order to promote the health of a person, the macro-nutrient profile of their food should match their body and their activity levels.

3. Micro-nutrients

Eating vegetables are good for you. The more raw the vegetables are, the better they are for you (probably). There is often a trade-off that needs to be struck between palatability and optimum health benefit.

There is also a wide array of micro-nutrients that can come from eating meat of various sorts.

There are many conflicting opinions here, without a broad consensus, so I'll leave it at that.

4. Weird stuff

Often times people will bring up ingredients in processed food that they don't know what it is, or even how to pronounce it.

I don't think people are bad to want to avoid stuff like that.

But for the most part, I have real doubts that this is the cause an health problems in even a small fraction of consumers.

So, this mean that McDonalds is as healthy as the burgers I make at home? I was under the impression that their food is loaded with sugar and strange additives.