I have several thoughts about this study

1 It does not say who funded the study and why it was conducted. An example of how funding can cause problems like this occured in the book "The Glucose Revolution". This is one of the first books that was ever written on the concept of the glycemic index. It had some great info, but I was puzzled by their assertation that honey, potatoes etc. had high GI's but that we should all still eat them in a high carb, low fat diet. Then I recently discovered that thjeir research was sponsered by the sugar association! Also, I have a degree in psychology and we were taught to always rexamine why a study was conducted

2 There were not enough participants involved to extend this finding to the population as a whole. No matter what statistical analysis they used 10 people is not an adequate sample

3 Note that they used the term "striking increase" in the amount of acid their kidneys had to handle rather than "statistically significant". If their results were statistically sig. they would have stated this. I conducted a thesis last year and one of the first things you state in a research paper is whether your results are statistically sig. or not

4 Perhaps there was something different about these people that meant Atkins didn't suit them. I know many ppl who do better on other low carb plans for example. This flaw again goes back to the small sample design

5 The study was way too short to make these striking generalisations

In short, the study was not conducted as well as it should have been and the researchers set out to achieve the result they wanted it seems.