Absolutely no argument that foods containing carbs also have other very useful things (as I said above). The less processed they are the more likely they are to have more "useful things" to "compensate" for the carbs (IMHO).
But I do take issue with this:
MLCDz wrote: NO carbs, would put you into ketosis, where your body breaks down its own muscle to survive causing potential kidney damage, cardiovascular muscle loss & liver stress. So, there is some need for whole grains in limited amounts. .
because it's not quite right.
Firstly, I'm usually in ketosis but I eat carbs (aiming for <20g on repair days and <50g on non-repair), these come from veggies and legumes - there is absolutely no need for grains
. I'm *not* saying that one shouldn't have grains, just that they're not needed - anything they have in them can be gained from other sources. Your suggestion that grain is essential implies that the diets of all those gluten free folk are going to be nutritionally deficient, which simply isn't the case.
Secondly, ketosis does *not* intrinsically lead to muscle break-down / kidney damage / cardiovascular muscle loss / liver stress. Starvation does, but ketosis does not.
In ketosis the sources of energy are a) what you eat and then b) your *fat* if you've eaten less than you need. Thus, unless you're eating waaaay too little and are a virtual skeleton, you'll not usually go anywhere near breaking down muscle for energy.
Check out the literature - I'm pretty certain that there's no evidence for what you're suggesting *except in exceptional / pathological circumstances* (FatDog is happy to eat her basket if she's got this wrong).
Just for example, the kidney damage trope comes from reports of folk *with existing kidney damage* doing very high protein diets - which is obviously not a good idea. A very low-carb diet does not require a high protein intake *at all* - a fairly common low carb break-down is 5 to 15% of one's energy from carb, 15% or less from protein, with the remains from fat.