So, I’m I to assume that you wanted to say that calories are more important than food quality?

Sure. I agree with that.

Regarding your careful choice of words. If you wanted to make a convoluted post in order to smugly debate some random person on the internet, then you have done an excellent job and I congratulate you sir.

If you are trying to actually communicate clearly then you have some improvements to make.

Well, the smugness is impressive. I’ll have to give you that.

You specifically said: “in other words, america could be totally healthy eating the exact same food if we built society around people living healthy lives, but that is far from the primary goal for a country living under capital.”

I just disagree with this statement. I don’t think we could eat the exact same diet in a different society and expect food-related health issues to significantly improve.

So where on the list of causes would you place calorie intake, food quality and inactivity? Secondary? Tertiary? Completely unrelated?

I slightly disagree.

If I suddenly started eating 15000 kcal of mostly sugar and fat each day, it would have a detrimental impact on my health. Regardless of my education or income.

So to me it seems like the effect is in reverse. If we changed society to make it easier for people to make healthier choices, then the general health would improve. But the actual improvement would come from calorie intake, food quality and activity levels.

But I absolutely agree that having limited access to healthy food, and living in a area where walking could be unsafe makes it incredibly hard to be healthy.