I haven't bothered much with the recent controversial study, because a short run-through showed that it was contrived and grossly misleading for real-life inference. So maybe there are some metabolic mechanistic gems to be mined from the coalface, but life's too short for this - need focus on the big issues... http://metabolismandmedicine.blogspot.ie/2015/08/did-low-fat-oust-low-carb-for-fat-loss.html
That said Ted Naiman, George Henderson and others raised a perfect point - even within their ridiculously constrained rules that enabled them to deliver a rather odd selection of macros for a LC vs LF study - was there not a useful combo that could have made the experiment more worthwhile?
A quick fiddle with excel this evening seems to say so, unless the vino has led me astray:
Unless I'm missing something obvious, it looks like they could have met their cunning constraint whilst still producing a compelling compare. They wanted to keep the opposing macros constant, whilst meeting consistent calorie reduction. Why didn't they pursue the second option above then? If they simply allowed a reasonable time period as well, they may even have delivered something more useful for their few million dollars. Unless of course, they weren't particularly aiming for 'something more useful'.