It’s probably worth distinguishing between processed - which as you mentioned includes broad swathes of cooking - and ultra-processed, the McDonalds-tier of foods.
The former is not particularly bad, while the latter is pretty bad.
The arguments against ‘ultra processed’ food IMO are twofold. First, in some countries, additives are poorly regulated and enforced, hence food sometimes contains harmful substances. Though I think it it fairly rare.
Second, most ‘ultra processed’ food in discussion are commercial fast food. Being ultra processed, they contain same energy and fat in less volume due to low indigestible junks. So people can eat them more. And due to over commercialization they are often made addictive with flavoring. This means you’ll binge eat and come for more. This over consumption of macro nutrients and sometimes elimination of micro nutrients due to cost effective processing makes what is unhealthy about such food.
So if the production is honest about ingredients (verified by regulatory tests), you calculate your daily nutrients intake to be in recommended range and you don’t fall for addiction easily, go for any ultra super processed food, no harms done.
(There are evidence of dietary fibers helping prevent certain types of colon cancers but unless you’re eating only sugar stuffs, most food in market contains enough of that, how much processed it be).
I recommend the book “The Hungry Brain” on this subject, which talks among other things about the things that eating excessive amounts of UPFs does to your brain.
Also “processed” can often mean “making it fucking edible.”
Wheat is a fine example, because while it is indeed edible raw, cooking or milling wheat makes it much more digestible.
Some aspects of processed foods are just removing a step our body has to do to digest it (which requires energy).
When you digest say, processed sugar, your body has to do almost nothing to digest it compared to complex carbohydrates.
It’s a short-cut for your body to expend less energy while getting energy.
(but that’s not always a good thing)
It’s probably worth distinguishing between processed - which as you mentioned includes broad swathes of cooking - and ultra-processed, the McDonalds-tier of foods.
The former is not particularly bad, while the latter is pretty bad.
The arguments against ‘ultra processed’ food IMO are twofold. First, in some countries, additives are poorly regulated and enforced, hence food sometimes contains harmful substances. Though I think it it fairly rare.
Second, most ‘ultra processed’ food in discussion are commercial fast food. Being ultra processed, they contain same energy and fat in less volume due to low indigestible junks. So people can eat them more. And due to over commercialization they are often made addictive with flavoring. This means you’ll binge eat and come for more. This over consumption of macro nutrients and sometimes elimination of micro nutrients due to cost effective processing makes what is unhealthy about such food.
So if the production is honest about ingredients (verified by regulatory tests), you calculate your daily nutrients intake to be in recommended range and you don’t fall for addiction easily, go for any ultra super processed food, no harms done.
(There are evidence of dietary fibers helping prevent certain types of colon cancers but unless you’re eating only sugar stuffs, most food in market contains enough of that, how much processed it be).
I recommend the book “The Hungry Brain” on this subject, which talks among other things about the things that eating excessive amounts of UPFs does to your brain.
Fascinating read, truly.