That article exhibits an almost complete lack of understanding of the principles behind the modern low carbohydrate diet. And it ignores millions of years of homo sapiens evolutionany development. It is written in technical language, but in essence, says little that is relevant to recent research on the low carbohydrate princples.
The Atkins diet, with which I am most familiar, is not a long-term, high fat diet. It allows reasonable amounts of fats to start the plan; but over the long term, the fats are reduced in both percentage and volume, until one is eating quite a balanced diet, sans heavy starches and carbohydrates, which are not natural components of an evolutionarily historical homo sapiens diet. The article ignores this important fact altogether. We did not evolve eating massive percentages of processed starches. They are not natural to our physiology.
I detected a distinct knee-jerk reaction in the article. We must remember, that if the high protein/low carb principle is proven to have positive long-term effects, these same people are suddenly thrust into a position of no longer being the authorities. They must suddenly reverse years of dietary dogma, and "eat some crow"; which they seem to resent along with other proteins.
When I started on Atkins, the only significant change I made to my diet was to forgo starches, in breads, potatoes, rice, flour, corn meal, and of course sugar. My percentages of proteins and fats rose instantly; but over about a month, my actual volume of these foods decreased. And I have lost 50 pounds, and various painful, disturbing sytmpoms that accompanies those pounds.
I have been on low fat/high carb diets for years, trying to control a metabolism wrecked 26 years ago. I've lost weight by starving but I've always gained it back. I've been under the care of the colleagues of some of the people who contributed to that article. Now what is better? Being chronically overweight for 20 years? Or losing that weight in less than one year? That is my goal.
I believe the people who wrote that article are so biased, and scared that they fail to even take that concept into consideration in their mad scramble to preserve their egos and status.
Just because people have letters after their names doesn't mean they are actually smart. The majority are merely parrots, squawking out ideas they memorized to get their degrees. I have little respect for the masses of them.
Good Luck with your own efforts