Another erstwhile lowcarber has joined the ranks of the starch brigade, and has begun the sad practice of strawman-fighting. :-(
Because it's EASIER to contradict and mock a philosophical opponent when you exaggerate or oversimplify his/her argument. It may make it easier to churn out blog-posts, but in the greater debate it doesn't get much ground covered. The two (or more) sides waste time and effort restating their premises definitively, the waters become permanently muddied, and the people who really need a concise answer as soon as possible ... moulder to dust.
Crafting ways to malign a counter-argument inappropriately is sloppy debating and pathetic "reasoning." Pasting an inapplicable label on, which everyone can agree to despise, does not make the basis of that position any less true.
NO, not everyone needs to VLC. YES, tolerance can be measured, so no longer should be a question of preference over physiology. ABSOLUTELY, experiments can and have been designed and run to prove any damned thing you want, so referencing studies by, for, and of the cherry-picker should perish from the earth.
But merely because some people carry more amylase-gene copies doesn't mean they SHOULD base their diets on starches. Though they tolerate a higher-starch diet better than we consistent lowcarbers do, there's STILL the issue of hyperglycemia, and the fact that tissues like the eyes take damage from it because even with faultless insulin performance, it isn't insulin which allows glucose in or keeps it out. If the ability to utilize starch well were the ONLY question in sugar-sourced illness, skinny people would not get diabetes.
It's time to revisit Lifextension's outstanding post about amylase. The novelty-loving blogosphere is very fond of focussing its attention so closely on details of the forest, the facts implied by the trees' distribution over the landscape sometimes gets ignored.