I wrote a article a while ago ago entitled, "What's Wrong With Paleo?" Like all my articles, it was poorly written, made little sense, and was completely disregarded by the main stream.
In the post, I laid down a straw-man argument stating that consuming "paleo-approved desserts" defeated the whole idea behind ancestral eating. Of course, I was a zero-carb zealot at the time, so I'm not even sure if I was taking myself seriously.
My intolerance towards other ways of eating was palpable. I was in the zone. The no-carb zone.
My ideas at the time were lifted from famous zero-carber Charles Washington who explained that those with excess weight were in a sense "broken" and could not tolerate carbohydrates. This was the first time I was introduced to the concept of one being "metabolically damaged."
This notion has resurfaced in the light of the "paleo 2.0" movement. Due to Paleo 1.0 being riddled with excessive orthorexia and consternation about macronutrient ratios, Paleo 2.0 served to unwind the mental burden of eating food by suggesting that macronutrients don't matter, neolithic agents of disease (fructose, gluten, industrial oils) are still important, and that context is everything.
However, in the context of poor glucose tolerance, many have suggested that low-carbohydrate diets are still the way to go.
I'm not paleo, I drink orange juice, make gummy candies with sucrose, and consume low-fat Häagen-Dazs on a regular basis. However, in the interest of being intellectually honest, I need those who do subscribe to this idea to explain why those who are seemingly "metabolically damaged" (chronic dieters, numerous diseases of civilization) lose weight on very high-carbohydrate diets like the ones espoused by McDougal, Ornish, Esselstyn, Furman, Barnard, Graham, etc.
Linked above are just two sites, which are user controlled and have hundreds of testimonials of those who have overcome western diseases and lost excess weight following the above regimen. The interesting part is that most of these participants do not avoid most NADs (fructose, gluten).
*Side Note: Again, I believe the above authors have it right for the wrong reasons; demonizing nutrient-dense animal foods make their diets incompatible for most in the long run.
If one had a "damaged metabolism" and gained a lot of weight on SAD, then consuming very high-carbohydrate diets should worsen their condition, not improve it.
I wrote this post not to ruffle feathers or to insinuate that I'm the smartest d00d in the room, but rather to blunt self-induced harm by those who feel like restriction is the only way to perfect health.
A self-diagnoses of "metabolically damaged" ushers in a newfound appreciation for carb-restriction. The dieter eventually becomes even more sensitive to carbohydrates, suppresses the metabolism further (low, or no libido), and may or may not deal with many of the known issues with low-carb paleo diets.
Maybe food reward is the missing factor, or a refractometer, but the term "metabolically damaged" is going to hurt everyone in long run.
Hell, I'm just regurgitating what Matt Stone said more than a year ago...