Item — HN Reader

Many individuals remain skeptical about the concept of evolutionary nutritional adaptation, arguing that our bodies have not adequately adapted to a variety of modern foods and additives. Indeed, there is mounting evidence suggesting that ultra-processed foods can have negative impacts on our health.

In the ongoing debate surrounding breast milk and baby formula, the majority continues to favor breast milk as the optimal choice for infant nutrition.

2 comments

This argument is all over the place.

Ultra processed foods are clearly garbage. There is no nuance to this. There is no need for a deep study needed on unclear aspects of nutrition. They are plainly bad nutrition wise.

Breast milk is not an active debate. It’s not determined by “the majority” either. It is pretty clear that breast milk is better for a baby developmentally.

None of this actually supports your earlier assertion that lab grown food would have fundamentally different nutrition rules than other foods.

Coevolving with meat didn't stop saturated fat from raising our rate of cardiovascular disease.

Due to antagonistic pleiotropy and short term reproductive selection you could even argue that novel foods have an advantage over the foods we've "adapted to" since our bodies never learned to make short term trade-offs with those foods.

Those skeptics should also be skeptical of the naturalistic fallacy.