One issue that I have with group studies is that they typically don't properly account for the outliers. In some cases the outliers are tossed out and in other cases the outlier data is just averaged into the mix. The results of a good study may be meaningful for the overall population; the average Joe. But how far is each of us as individuals from the overall "average" of all individuals? I think that it makes a lot of difference where you fall. Me? I'd be an outlier on either one of those diet plans. My data would have been tossed out for non-adherence or tossed into the average data with my weight gain having a negative impact on the overall numbers. Of that I'm fairly certain.

I have no doubt that eating more healthy whole food as well as less sugar and refined carbs would result in many people losing weight. I saw that in my own family. My change in diet had a significant impact on the quality of food in our household. Two members of my family lost weight without even trying to be on the diet. Eating better quality food, much less processed food & sugar, less dining out, etc. was enough. But if free to choose among all the food options in my household at the time, without tracking I'm not sure that I would have lost much if any weight. I would have had trouble with compliance, too. I was extremely metabolically unhealthy and I had serious issues with carb addiction and binging. Even healthy food would have set off those counterproductive behaviors.

They did mention non-compliance in that DD story. But why stop there? Why was there non-compliance? Gluttony and sloth? Weak will? Maybe. Or perhaps neither diet option as put forth was appropriate for the special needs of the non-compliant participants.

I wonder how much the non-compliant individuals affected the results of this study. Would compliance with the low carb diet have been better if at least counting carbs and keeping it "keto" had been added to the parameters?