Following up on my potato question, it seemed to me like many paleos out there eat quite a bit of starchy tubers and fruit. This leads me to another question: should low-carb be deemphasized as part of the paleo diet?
There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that the carbohydrate hypothesis is false: carbohydrates as such do not cause obesity, diebetes, etc. Rather the cause may lie with gluten grains and/or fructose consumed regularly in large quantities.
If this is true, it seems like we're unnecessarily associating paleo with low-carb in way that keeps lots of people from taking it up. People think they can't do it, or they try it, get the "carb flu" and give it up. And it seems like, based on the accounts of many folks here, that many people just function better with some starchy foods in their diet.
It's often said in paleo circles that low-carb is necessary for weight loss/restoring a healthy metabolism. I'm not saying this is wrong, but is the evidence for this actually that strong? What if you just cut junk, grains, legumes, and refined sugar? Has low-carb been compared to this scenario?
I don't mean to dismiss the experience of those who do well with VLC. I'm just suggesting that it should be made very clear that paleo is not necessarily low-carb. It seems like most folks around here accept this already, but many new to the diet still think they need to go low-carb to see the real benefits. And folks like Kurt Harris and Mark Sisson push this position (all due respect- and it's a lot- to those guys).
So should we sever our spiritual bonds with low-carbers, or am I missing something?