This is only my first-glance opinion, and it may not have much to do with goals, but my understanding is that you're a little concerned about the fact that you eat such a large amount of grains and high glycemic index foods. Eating so much bread and sweet potatoes would (again, just my guess, not a professional nutritionist) increase risk of diabetes greatly. If your goal is to reduce your bread / sweet potato consumption, and the main reason you eat those items is because of their taste and not their nutritional impact, then I think the link from Seth Roberts is very applicable. Note that the approach described there can work equally well for situations where a person wants to lose weight, gain weight, gain muscle, or train themselves to curb the cravings associated with certain foods.
The trick is to achieve whatever flavor experience you want without the same distribution of calories. My suggestion would be to eat peanut butter with your homemade bread, which should cause you to feel less hungry later and presumably help you eat less bread in general without feeling like you're not getting enough of the bread taste that you like. I don't think this has a lot to do with weight set points, unless you intend to use a diet for that type of change.
Sweet potatoes are low glycemic. This surprised me, considering how sweet they are, but they don't leave me feeling as though I've eaten a lot of sugar.
On the other hand, they might be high glycemic or something like it for a few people.
So, I know a number of friends on Paleo who recommend it. I recently read through a lot of bulletproofexec, who recommends his own variant of paleo. I care about my health, and so I need to resolve my diet and their advice somehow. Summarized data points:
I find the logic behind paleo questionable. Yes, hunter-gatherers are adapted to a different diet, but fire was first used to cook food 2 million years ago, and appears widespread by 100 kiloyears (ky) ago, with noticeable adaptations in humans (from smaller teeth to resistance to air pollution). Lactose tolerance demonstrates the ability of human biology to adapt to new diets. Civilization dramatically speeds up evolution- it probably took about 25ky for European hunter-gatherers (and later farmers) to go from a mean IQ of 85 to 100, and about 1ky for urban European Jews to go from a mean IQ of 100 to 115. Am I really supposed to believe that there aren't genes floating around that wheat (domesticated 10ky ago) is good for?
My interpretation of this data is that my current diet works well for me, and paleo is unlikely to work better. I am willing to experiment, though- if I will actually live better on a different diet, there is little holding me back besides a lack of information. My values, in descending order of importance, are: brain function, overall health, appearance, mood, and cost. (Note that those are weights- something can improve brain function but be so costly in dollars, prep time, and terrible taste that I'm not interested.)
So my question for you is: Should I try paleo (more likely, the bulletproof diet)? If I do, what data should I collect? Better yet, what data can I collect now to determine if I have any nutritional deficiencies?