The findings show observational associations rather than cause-and-effect and what people ate was based on self-reported data, which might not be accurate.

And the authors acknowledge that since diets were measured only at the start of the trial and six years later, dietary patterns could have changed over the subsequent 19 years.

So yeah... quite useless, and even if it wasn't useless, the key takeaway was that the choice to eat animal vs plants to replace the loss of carb intake was the bad/good effect, not lowering carb intake.

One point for effort though ;-)