Gluttony and Sloth ...
... ain't got nothing on Addict and Uncaring.
I think this is what has really poisoned the discourse when it comes to carbs and food quality vs. calories. The "alternate hypothesis" camp banks heavily on the visceral response and religious/judgmental tone of the terms gluttony and sloth to anger their base.
Gluttony, almost synonymous with greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins (that was just the first link in Google folks). The problem here is that Americans are eating more, and I think most would not be offended were this couched in the terminology of "passive overeating". Here is a Google Scholar search on the term. This, I believe is far more explanatory of this "simple" obesity epidemic than any other single factor. Bottom line, eating too much need not be associated with stuffing one's face to belly bursting.
Sloth ... Well, who wants to be called lazy? And yet again, while it is difficult to quantify, we are less active than we used to be. Everything from transportation to remote controls to motorized everything to wireless everything else. These little things do add up. I mean a large proportion of former athletes? Eat anything ever twig gets desk job in a cubicle? I find the arguments that activity has nothing to do with it to be the most disingenuous.
But if not a Glutton and Sloth, why are "those people" "fat"? Of course it's not anyone's fault, but yet, there's all manner of sinning going on out there. Those promoting some version of "CICO is meaningless" and it's all hormonal magic and nutrition and avoiding toxic stuff ... or the more simple version of carbs drive insulin drive fat ... have a hard time explaining why their approach seems to work no better. The low carbers play the martyr, but that gets old in the face of the extremes folks are willing to go to lose weight. Atkins has been around for over 40 years now (and it wasn't the first LC diet) and yet it did not forestall the obesity epidemic. We didn't cut fat, we added mostly carbs and a little fat, and we are getting fatter on the whole. Paleo has an even more spotty record as they can't even figure out what the diet is/was, but there's no evidence of lasting (and verifiable) obesity reversal just by improving the so-called "quality" of foods. But, if paleo/LC cures all (as we are told repeatedly) why doesn't everyone just stick with it? Why aren't even at least all of the die hards effortlessly ripped and voluptuous only in the right places?
Because they are Addicts and Uncaring. These are the two most often bantied around phrases. You see that carbs are addictive is a "truth" taken at face value. Anyone who dare eat carbs must be doing so because they are an addict and unable to abstain. The athletes get a little dispensation these days, but that wasn't always so (fat was the macro to increase not all that long ago in CrossFit nutrition classes). Everyone who eats carbs is looked upon the same as the drug addict or alcoholic who repeatedly relapses no matter how good they feel sober. Then there are those who "don't care about their health" -- or that of their children or significant others, etc. The purists among the purest of the pure in their ivory towers don't understand why the mere mortals would even want to eat something tasty while out with friends "in moderation". No, moderation is the enemy and it must be judged out of favor.
Calling someone an addict because they can enjoy life and foods in moderation is the ultimate smear. Ditto accusing them of having any less respect or caring for their bodies, families, etc. because they would rather enjoy cultural festivities or just a normal night out with friends than obsess endlessly over whether the eggs came from cage fed or free range hens. These terms are worse than even gluttony and sloth. It's time to remove all such judgments from discourse in this realm. I hold out little hope though.