I'm not sure I would point to ground beef as a particularly "natural source of calories". At least not in the US, where cows are largely raised on.... corn and soy (and pharmaceuticals).
> "CHOW contained spun, plaited, and woven protein molecules, capped and coded, carefully designed to be ignored by even the most ravenous digestive tract enzymes; no-cal sweeteners; mineral oils replacing vegetable oils; fibrous materials, colorings, and flavorings. The end result was a foodstuff almost indistinguishable from any other except for two things. Firstly, the price, which was slightly higher, and secondly, the nutritional content, which was roughly equivalent to that of a Sony Walkman."
Neil Gaiman - Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch
Although, these particular preparations might be closer to MEALS:
> "MEALS was CHOW with added sugar and fat. The theory was that if you ate enough MEALS you would a) get very fat, and b) die of malnutrition."
Also if you are going to say that humans are designed and ignore Darwin's theory of evolution, you are going to lose you credibility on your thoughts on science.
This is a bad example, because ignoring what we have been 'designed' to eat, fruit is certainly designed to be eaten, which is even better. Just think about it: you can pick it, and leave it lying around for weeks and it is still fine. There are almost zero fruit-borne illnesses. When it is spoiled, it is obvious by looking at it or smelling it. I mean, this is something that has evolved to be eaten by large mammals. I don't think this is substantially changed by modern farming.
I don't understand your argument at all - you are saying that foods that are designed to be eaten are inherently better?
Sugar is sugar. It doesn't matter if the sugar has been added through selective breeding or just added afterwards. The only reasons fruits are a little bit healthier than soda with the same sugar/micronutrient content is the fibers in the fruit that makes it harder to consume too much of it.
The original comment was arguing that modern fruit is not 'natural' due to farming practices. My argument is that this isn't the example to choose, because of all things, fruit is among the best things to eat.
There is plenty of evidence that fruit consumption is good for you[1], which will obviously not be reproduced by drinking the equivalent flavoured soda. "A little bit healthier"? This is a joke?
Not really, at least not in any directed way. To the extent that you might say that evolution designed us to do, including eat, anything, it is only exactly whatever we do do.
Humans are complicated creatures, and just replicating the macronutrients (and even micronutrients) into an ingestible substance is not a replacement for real food.
There was an article in HN news sometime last year covering the results of a well controlled experiment.
In summary: All processed food is bad for you. Not "bad" like cigarettes, but bad in the sense that if your diet primarily consists of processed food, you will gain more weight, and gain it rather quickly.
"I can't believe it's not meat" products are heavily processed and shouldn't be the majority of your diet. Stick with real meat and/or high protein vegetables, depending on your preferences or dietary needs.
You don't have to look it up if you don't want to, but you should know the health risks of eating factory-farmed meat (regarding antibiotic resistance, among other things) are almost assuredly worse.
