Many times, a study that compares diet with measure a health low whatever (fat, car, protein) against a crappy diet and of course will come out as beneficial. But when studies have been done that compare healthy low carb against healthy low fat, the diets are equivalent. What matters is the "healthy" component. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150
There is not one ideal diet for all. Some will do better on low carb, other on low fat, and maybe you should take your body's response to the low carb as an indication it might not be the right one for you.
Whenever adopting a log/high something, the first food to go are processed food, and the main benefit comes actually from that (no added sugar, no refined grains, processed oils) , so in the end, the real benefit is the banning of industrial and processed food, the snacking and so on.
In the world of nutrition studies, the bias is dominant. Especially for anyone who earns money out of a point of view. Whatever point of view and whatever mean they get the money from, be it the advertisement on YouTube videos, selling a program, a subscription, social media, influencing and so on.
They will throw numbers and manipulated studies like the picture I attached promoting low carb. But in my image, the right is not low carb (carrots, potatoes, ...) , it is crap vs healthy.
All this nutritionism is very confusing, and I would dare say even damaging.
If you can apply the no added sugars, no refined grains, no processed oil and enjoy a healthy die, you will see the success