Don't bother with keto
>http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1055.long
>http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html
>http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/289/14/1837.abstract
We saw that the previous studies you posted are irrelevant because they neglect ketogenis diets or changes in body composition over mere weight loss. The above studies, on the other hand, are clearly relevant.
1. The second link you posted includes the content of the first, so I can evaluate them as one. The only weakness I can find here is one that Lyle points out: "BIA [the method this study used to measure bodyfat] has its share of problems and can be thrown off by hydration status, which is affected by the carbohydrate content of the diet." But let's cede the results of this study to you. In your previous post you yourself indicated 2 studies that support the 'ketogenesis is superior for fat loss' hypothesis, meaning us ketofreaks are up 2-1 (since the rest of your articles were irrelevant, either not evaluating keto diets or otherwise not measuring changes in body composition).
2.. The third study concludes that "there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets," but again, the definition of 'low-carbohydrate' diet is key. The metaanalysis ranges over 107 articles, which themselves study diets with carb intakes ranging from "0-901g/d." 901g a day of carbs is low-carb and thus effects the conclusion of whether low-carb diets are effective? OK.
The study also ignores body composition changes, meaning it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether ketosis leads to the fastest fat loss/muscle preservation over the short term.
3. In short, the result of our sparring seems to be that the ketofreaks are winning on the scientific front (2-1). Additionally, we see that the current paradigm (a preference for moderate/high carb consumption) leads researchers to make lazy methodological decisions and still conclude in favor of orthodoxy, neglecting to even evaluate keto diets while still concluding against their efficacy.
But there's a more important point to be made: I can take out my stack of studies done on 20 obese Genoese women laying in gurneys and fight with you over the results of your stack of studies done on 10 obese people, 6 of which are kids, but the fact is that such data is irrelevant to the discussion. The data relevant is the broscientists like OTH serving themselves up as guinea pigs, of which there are thousands.
The scientific study of ketosis' efficacy remains woefully inadequate (I casually poked holes in virtually all the studies you presented) so in the meantime we need to use data collected in the field -- people who have been getting sliced and diced for decades (those 20 Genoese fuckers don't outweigh -- excuse the term -- the opinion of most bodybuilders, which is clearly that ketogenic diets are brutally effective for stripping away fat and preserving muscle in a short amount of time, better than other diets for this purpose).