The article doesn't lay out a good argument for why "ultra-processed" is a more significant comparison than considerations like "too much sugar is bad", "too much salt is bad".

"too much sugar is bad" is already enough to express things like "drinking coca cola is unhealthy": since coca cola is high in calories but low in nutrients. It's easy to consume more calories than the body burns by drinking coca cola.

AFAIU, the argument as presented is that "ultra-processed" foods are unhealthy, because the processing makes you want to eat the food more.

I feel the argument against "ultra-processed" is in agreement with "limit consuming food that's low-satiation, low-nutrition, calorie-dense"; but then focuses on "ultra-processing bad", seemingly because processing leads to those bad things.