The article actually supports what I said in most of it. At the top where it is most negative it is really just saying that the diet goes against current guide lines. I can't remember what issue, but Men's Health had something about metabolic advantage being proven. It might also be on this.
If nothing else that has much of the low carb research.
Then think of this, if ratios and carb types are not proven, then why is everything going in the low glycemic direction now? A lot of "calorie is a calorie" diets are going low glycemic. Even Dr. Ornish the king of ultra low fat went to a low glycemic plan a few years ago. Weight Watchers is about the only hold out I can think of with their low fat sugar filled entrees.
Also if you look at the "fat is bad for you" stuff that gets people all freaked out about heart disease, you will see the subjets did not eat low carb. In fact they where eating a high carb, hgh fat diet. Look up any study. You will see they all ate high carb. The difference is the insulin levels. Look at the top at the actions on cellular and metobollic level section.
Here is the main part of the reason that insulin levels have a lot to do with it. Insulin has a lot to do with cholesterol synthesis.
http://www.tamu.edu/classes/plan/magill ... synthesis'
This has to do with fat storage and use. It talks about diabetes, but it shows the effects of higher insulin levels.
Also keep in mind that meat was most availible source of food for early man. Also some nuts, berries and some veggies. That was the for 2 million years if you count homo erectus. Higher carb foods have only been around for 4000 years. Cultivation of fruit for maybe 6000. That is not enough time to evolve a dependance on high carbohydrate levels, or on simple carbs.
Quite the opposite. We see from all the metabollic syndrome, that maybe we are not meant to eat much of that kind of food.
From what I have seen "calorie is a calorie" has been debunked 10 ways to Sunday. Raw calories in, are a very small part of the whole picture of metabolism.