This may be the best example of conformation bias that I have seen in a while. Research published which disagrees with this forum's collective opinion, therefore it must be rubbish.
How many of the people who have rubbished the work here have actually read it?
It contains compelling statistical evidence that low fibre diets increase the likelihood of poor cardiovascular health from research spanning 50 years. If anyone has evidence that this is not true could you reference it please.
LCHF diets make obtaining fibre more difficult which is probably why the Guardian mentions them (for example it takes 850g of raw kale (44g of carbs) to reach 30g of fibre). How many people eating under 50g of carbs a day are getting 30g of fibre?
If LCHF is the only way possible to control blood sugar, then it is the best (probably the only) diet to have. If it can be controlled some other way (e.g. diet and exercise, or maybe even meds) then LCHF is probably not the healthiest option.
This report is nothing new and agrees with meta analyses done by the Cochrane organisation over many years.
[PLoS which is criticised here is, for any who don't know it, the Public Library of Science, an open access publisher which believes that research should be freely available to the public, It isn't part of a global conspiracy to make us all vegan]