Sure.  Force is a leading word.  Consider that humans have
evolved to be the worlds top predator.  Going into ketosis
equals eating the diet of a successful predator and is thus
a beneficial indicator.

You've discussed population growth and the economic
need to eat a high percentage of plant calories.  Do not
confuse that which has been or probably will be mandatory
with what is healthy - Grains are not beneficial to humans
no matter that grain agriculture was the starting point of
civilization.  What's beneficial to humans are the various
classes of veggies, fruit, nuts and so on among the plant
foods with careful attention to intolerance rates.  Plus
animal foods that we have spent the last 5 million years
evolving to eat more and more of to the point our internal
systems are clearly omnivorous.

Economic need for grain is not the same as grain having
health benefits.  The same applies to any focus that moves
towards vegitarianism.  Humans are evolved to eat both so
we have the best health when we do.  Both all-meat and
vegan eating plans take far more special planning than
variations on meat and veggies.  While low carb plans may
involve eating more meat than vegitarians or economists
like, it's natural that maintenance phases approach some
range among 50-50 using portion sizes and 50-50 using
calorie counts.  It's also natural that the early loss phases
involve more lean - Witness almost any carnivore and almost
any herbivore.

Plans that work focus on what works, not on what happens
when an eating system is forced or what is economically
viable.

Correct.  A very simple model is to view triglycerides as the
body's fat transportation method.  They flow in or out of fat
cells (slow in, slow out), get converted into other types of
cholesterol for all sorts of uses including many hormones,
get swept out of the blood as fuel (the acetyl-CoA process
is slow, the ketone process is fast).  In this simple model
the levels are lowered once in ketosis long enough because
enough stored fat is lost that the rate flowing out of the fat
cells is lower than the rate the liver sweeps out to make both
acetyl-CoA and ketones.  Like most metabolic models
there's more to it than that but it works as a simple model.

As you've seen recently, most of the studies that make the
news are badly flawed by researchers who have not bothered
to read the basic books in the subject, and/or researchers
who wish to push a specific conclusion, and/or reporters who
want sound bites.

The better studies are more specific in topic and so much less
interesting to the press.  Regulars on ASDLC scan new studies
making judgments about what's valuable.  In the past there
were more regulars doing so.

Doctor Atkins New Diet Revolution on the chance you haven't
reversed the acronym yet.  There's also the 1972 version with
one less word in the title DADR.  Libraries usually have at least
one copy of the 1972 white cover, 1993 yellow cover, 1999 blue
cover and 2002 completely revised editions.

There a lot more books on the topic.  Many far more technical
so to me they make for better follow on reading.  Atkins for what
to eat, how phases generally work, how bad writing technique
can get and still be popular.  Other books for the science of
insulin, glucagon, T3 thyroid, leptin, cortisone and so on in
level after level of hormonal feeback loops.