Not an expert but I don't think this is a great paper for a few reasons:
- there's quite a lot of variation in carbohydrate intake in LCD and fat intake in LFD group (even though there are statistically significant differences between the groups).
- they did not control for protein.
- they could have made things a lot simpler by stating macros for each diet in grams instead of in terms of ancient Chinese measurement units. Simply replacing almonds for part of the "staple food" (admittedly high carb) was also strange, although understandable to improve compliance.
- we know simply losing weight improves metabolic markers. People in the LCD lost weight. It is hard not to ascribe the improvements to that. That could say something about the potential of LCD for weight loss given the difference in calories between groups wasn't statistically significant.
- there's quite a lot of variation in carbohydrate intake in LCD and fat intake in LFD group (even though there are statistically significant differences between the groups).
- they did not control for protein.
- they could have made things a lot simpler by stating macros for each diet in grams instead of in terms of ancient Chinese measurement units. Simply replacing almonds for part of the "staple food" (admittedly high carb) was also strange, although understandable to improve compliance.
- we know simply losing weight improves metabolic markers. People in the LCD lost weight. It is hard not to ascribe the improvements to that. That could say something about the potential of LCD for weight loss given the difference in calories between groups wasn't statistically significant.