Rather than talking about diets as low or high carb, he proposes talking about diets in terms of the kinds of carbohydrate consumed: glucose and starch, fructose, inulin, or cellulose.
I like the idea. I would add though, to meaningfully talk about the source of carb in a diet, it is also important to know what comes in the food along with the carbohydrate type. Thus we can differentiate between high starch from grain, and that from tubers, for example. Just as he did in his fat taxonomy, after classifying and ranking fats, he classifies sources.
I'm very interested in how this entire series he's doing will play out. Part I, which was on fats, was brilliant as far as I'm concerned.
I do wish he provided citations for some of the things he writes.
I completely agree; I think that fructose should be thought of as being essentially a deleterious lipogenic hormone instead of a carbohydrate. Additionally, I eat as much potato as I like without fear of the carb boogie man coming to get me. A low fructose diet is the most important step toward losing fat. It is far more important than "low carb."
I love the "taxonomy". Especially in regard to explaining your "weird" diet to SAD coworkers and friends. It makes so much more sense to say, "I eat a lot of Grass Fed Saturated Fat/Protein" when they question how you can feel safe eating such high amounts of saturated fat. The differentiation does the job of emphasizing the quality of fat or carbs over the quantity very nicely. An added bonus is that explaining GRAF/zero FF (for example) means no more explaining how the diet is not the traditional LC diet they have heard about for years.
It is a lot of fun and I gain valuable knowledge discussing ratios, nutrients, calories etc on sites like this, but in the end it is really just splitting hairs. For me, paleo is about the quality of real food. Period. And the PaNu acronyms are a great way to do that succinctly.
I wish he would say more about his opposition to glycation (i.e., post cites on effects). I mean, sure, it's bad, but do we /really/ know just how harmful it is? This is one of those cases where I feel like the agenda is driving the scientific interpretation and he's wandering into too strong of claims territory.