I would take these pop science articles with a grain of salt. For one, they use vague, technically correct but substantively misleading terms like ‘suggests,’ ‘is linked with,’ ‘seems to,’ etc. Nowhere do they say that the link is firm and established, but you get the impression that it is.
For another, they don’t give many details about the hard data. What’s ‘low-carb’? Does it in fact include plenty of fruit, vegetables and whole grains, as they mention? Does it avoid them altogether? What’s the context for those eating the higher percentage of carbs? Were other variables controlled, like exercise patterns, hereditary factors, etc.
Anthony Colpo’s article posted yesterday takes on this notion that we can learn much about the mechanism of these connections through epidemiological studies, which this sounds like. Correlation does not imply causation and can in fact lead one off the trail if you don’t know what the mechanism at work is for the association.
Check out Anthony’s free eBook ‘The Junk Science Self-Defense Manual,’ http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/ac_theomnivore It gives a good set of guidelines for interpreting whether scientific claims in such articles have merit or are just smoke and mirrors.