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 cent

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.