No, of course I'm not saying that no one's doing it anymore. For all I know more are doing it than ever. What I am saying is that there is no evidence for its commonly reputed advantages. There are free-living studies and there are ward studies. Free-living studies are basically where researchers ask you to eat in a certain way, cut you loose and you report back. Ward-studies are essentially where you are confined to a facility and they watch you like a hawk so as to ensure that you're eating in a particular way. As I understand it, of the free-living studies which compare low-carb to high-carb, roughly half show low-carbers losing marginally more weight than the high-carbers. Strangely (just kidding) the other half are never referenced by promoters of the low-carb approach. Note: it has been suggested that the reason some free-living studies show an advantage for low-carb is that, when there are no restrictions on eating, higher-protein diets afford better satiety. Thus, low-carbers consume fewer calories overall. Of the ward studies, without exception they show no advantage for low-carb. It all comes down to calorie deficit. There is no 'metabolic advantage' to severely restricting carbs. Moreover, which, if any, elite athletes do it ? Even bodybuilders are going high-carb these days.