I have/had similar thoughts. For example: it's all just various hydrocarbons that are going to be chopped up by enzymes, so what's the difference exactly which atom is where?
My guess that the "processed food is poison" people are only by chance hitting on something. They have zero evidence and zero supporting data.
However, I've come to suspect that the gut is a very complex thing, with a computer in it, and highly connected to the brain. Once you start to go down that line of thinking, I think it's plausible that they've identified a real problem. One possibility among many is that "corporate food" is the result of a giant A/B test series over a hundred years that has machine-learned the model embodied in the gut-computer. It's essentially a DoS attack. And so on. Suggest folk consider what if the gut has a neural network with various sensors and subject to training data.
There's zero evidence showing the harm of processed foods?
Consider that nutrition labels are largely focused on macronutrients. Carbs, fat, protein. Calories in and calories out.
What processed food tends to lack are micronutrients found in fresh, high-quality produce. This goes beyond vitamins (which are becoming scarcer due to agricultural practices). Anthocyanins, carotenoids, and other phytochemicals are produced by plants as protective agents. Those same chemicals help mitigate the entropic forces the body is subjected to over time.
Going back to macros, not all of them are created equal. Glucose syrup can have the same carbohydrate content as a sweet potato, but their glycemic index (how it impacts the functioning of the body) will vary. That doesn't get into the value of the fiber for the gut microbiome.
The differences are there when looking beyond the surface.
Pray tell, besides satiety, what exactly is the difference between carbs from a sweet potato and carbs from glucose syrup, or just plain sugar?
You’re missing the other good stuff in a sweet potato (vitamins, fiber, some protein even), but carbs for carbs it’s all gonna do the same thing.
The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that it’s much easier to eat a liter of glucose syrup than a few pounds of sweet potatos. If you could resist and turn off your body’s hunger response, you’d be equivalently overweight. That’s basically why GLP1 antagonists work. It turns that hunger response and makes it easier to say no to that extra slice of pizza.
Satiety is precisely it, and I would not be so quick to minimize its effect.
Reasoning by analogy, most would accept that some people are better suited to extended release medication versus instant. A drug is defined as something that has an effect upon the body when it's ingested, especially in the context of the central nervous system.
Carbohydrates are the preferred fuel source of the body, the brain included. Glucose syrup is simple (C6H12O6). A simple carbohydrate like glucose needs minimal processing to become "active," and it tends to be provided without fiber which would ordinarily buffer the overall glycemic index (impact upon the body). As a result, a spike in blood sugar and insulin occurs.
The subsequent drop in blood sugar can lead to craving and excess consumption, and eventually insulin resistance over the long term. The reason why my initial comment seemed dismissive of "calories in calories out" is because it takes a myopic view of a complex system.
If we view insulin sensitivity (among other factors) as either a positive or negative multiplier of the "calories in calories out" metric, I believe we'd be closer to an accurate view of metabolism and its impact on human health. Sure, we can just take GLP-1 antagonists to curb that appetite, but we could curtail it at the source as well.
That's why I gravitate towards the 'hyper-palatable' label vs 'hyper-processed', to me it captures a more plausible set of criteria (engineered via fat/sugar/salt addition to maximize its appeal, etc) that cause a more plausible and specific set of problems (hijacking reward pathways to cause overeating, etc)
There is a Peter Attia interview with Michael Easter that explores this concept and anecdotally supports it, where he investigates a tribe (Tsimane tribe) with low obesity and cardiovascular disease, and his personal experience eating their plain and unseasoned diet compared to normal western foods.
I normally dislike the typical podcasters/podcasts because of their self promoting and low information density nature but I thought this one was ok to recommend.
If you want it from an industrial perspective, I suggest checking out “Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us“ by Michael Moss, and “The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite” by David A. Kessler, former head of the FDA.
My guess that the "processed food is poison" people are only by chance hitting on something. They have zero evidence and zero supporting data.
However, I've come to suspect that the gut is a very complex thing, with a computer in it, and highly connected to the brain. Once you start to go down that line of thinking, I think it's plausible that they've identified a real problem. One possibility among many is that "corporate food" is the result of a giant A/B test series over a hundred years that has machine-learned the model embodied in the gut-computer. It's essentially a DoS attack. And so on. Suggest folk consider what if the gut has a neural network with various sensors and subject to training data.