Actually, almost every study that looks at calories and low carb comes up
with the same results.  However, some people are adamant (sp?) that if you
took these people and put them in chambers to measure every calorie,
there's no difference in low carb and high carb.  There was one study that
used twins and did this and determined no difference between low and high
carb.  However, most studies support the "low carb = more weight loss"
hypothesis.  Have you seen these:

 Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in
Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract)    Added on: 4/29/2003
    Hits: 263   
From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of
Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women on
two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was on a
high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the USDA's low
protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that both groups
lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high protein group
lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the USDA food pyramid
group. The researchers also noted that women in the high protein group had
more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels, and lower cholesterol
levels.

   
 High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets
(Magazine Article)    Added on: 12/27/2002     Hits: 1145   
From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002: This
team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two different low
fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and the second was
high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the study participants'
body temperature and resting energy expenditure was 100% greater after
eating high protein meals that after eating high carbohydrate meals. They
concluded that the thermogenesis that occurs after high-protein meals may
partially explain the effectiveness of high-protein diets for weight loss.

(From http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=199)

Ignoramus5937 generously shared with us this little ditty:

Why?

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower
than what I ate before!).

It depends if you are diabetic or not ;) Though I do agree it's only
informative. It depends a lot on the whole composition of the meal, not of
individual items. But it has a great educative value, and some true
surprises (like, chocolate being rather low or industrial mashed potatoes
being higher than sugar).
Actually, I think the interresting part of GI is *what* can change the GI of
a given food item (fats, proteins, acidity...). Like, the fact that acidity
can lower GI dramatically, hence sourdough can be an alternative to
wholewheat bread. What is also very interresting is looking at traditionnal
cooking using that knowledge. Many traditionnal recipes are actually the
best way to lower the GI of the food. Just have a look at Spanish paella :
rice cooked in fat by absoption (= "al dente") along with proteins, fibers
and some lemon juice. Likewise, a good Indian curry *requires* an acid base
and some fat. France cooked beans in fat (duck fat, lard). There are many
similar recipes.

That was a 12 weeks study. I doubt *any* diet would manage to damage the
liver or kidney in such a small amount of time, no matter how unbalanced.
Both these organs are extremelly sturdy, it takes repeated assaults on them
to finally cause them to malfunction. If one really wanted to see the health
impacts of these diets, one would have to study them over several years, on
a large population. That would be an interresting study in itself. I'm not
convinced extreme low-fat is any healthier than extreme low-carb btw.

As I said: long term effects. Meaning 10 to 20 years from now, and later,
with the kids being on a sustained low-carb/high-protein regimen. Most of
the bad effects of high fat don't become evident until much later in life,
when your body is less 'adjustable'. Kid's bodies are often much more
adept at adjusting with little or no impact (e.g. broken bones heal twice
as fast in infants compared to adults, IYKWIM).

Unfortunately, the low-carb diet hasn't been around long enough to really
understand its long term effects. In the long run we still have to see
whether it is indeed more efficient, and at what costs. And by that I also
mean at least 10 to 20 years from now. Of course, if the alternative is
being severly obese, anything is better than that...