> "(e.g. 10,000 years isn't enough time for humans to adapt to eating grains, so we should eat like cave men instead)"
This is a common claim by paleo supporters, but I don't see it in the article.
If anything the approach is the opposite: carbs are fine, but they are calorie-dense. In an era where we're over-consuming calories it makes sense to start cutting the most calorie-dense (and also least filling) foods first.
As someone who went to Fat Class when he was a kid, this has been accepted practice for dietitians for years. If you're over-consuming, you want to optimize for a balance of the amount of calories reduced vs. the amount of hunger increased. Leaving oneself hungry is the surest way to fall of a diet-change wagon - and cheap sugars give the "worst" combination of fillingness vs. calories consumed (it would be best if we actually needed said calories).
The argument doesn't stem from some pseudoscientific belief that some foods are magically worse than others for inscrutable reasons like inverting the polaron field. It makes its argument from the (typically anti-paleo) stance that all foods are (more or less equal) and calories are the primary concern.