In a way, the best health-and-fitness research speaks to me, and in a way, I speak back. I write down my thoughts about what I just read as a way to better understand the research, my thoughts about it, or both.

That was not the case when I scribbled down “No one really knows what’s coming next,” while recently reading, however. These words came from being lulled to sleep and caught off guard.

When I read the title of a UC Berkeley Wellness Letter article: “Low-Fat vs. Low-Carb Diets: And the Winner Is . . . ?”, I thought for sure I knew the answer. I thought for sure that the article would cite the merits and misgivings of both and decide that there was no clear-cut winner, and — as sure as the little pimple divot on my nose — I was correct.

So what caught me off-guard? Be patient, my reader. The protocol of this study needs to be further explained since most people associate low-fat and low-carb diets with that oh-so-interesting “E” word.

Extreme.

For instance, the former No. 1 New York Times bestseller that Dr. Dean Ornish penned, Eat More, Weigh Less, is constructed so that no more than 10 percent of daily calories come from dietary fat.

How extreme is that? A single tablespoon of olive oil contains 14 grams of fat, yet a moderately active, in-shape-but-petite female, on Ornish’s diet can consume no more than 20 total grams of fat per day.

Similarly, the former No. 1 New York Times bestseller Dr. Robert Atkins produced, Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution, is fashioned so that less than 10 percent of daily calories come from carbohydrates.

How extreme is that? A single tablespoon of table sugar contains 5 grams of carbohydrates and during the Atkins’ diet 14-day Induction Phase even a moderately active, in-shape-but-big-boned male keeps his carb total to no more than 20 grams per day.

But after starting as restrictively as these diets do, the diets used in the study from Stanford University featured in the UC Berkeley Wellness Letter allowed the 609 already overweight or obese participants to add back either carbs or fats in small weekly increments. They were to do so until they hit upon portions that they felt they could handle permanently — meaning amounts that would not leave them habitually hungry or always hankering for forbidden foods.

Additionally, the participants were never specifically told at any time to cut calories or limit portions, but they were encouraged to engage in moderate amounts of exercise.

Named DIETFITS, short for Diet Intervention Examine The Factors Interacting with Treatment Success, this study found that although both moderate low-fat and low-carb diets produced an average overall weight loss at the end of a full year (though some participants gained as many as 20 pounds) the degree of success was deemed no more than moderate.

The average loss for both groups was about 12 pounds.

Which is within a pound or two of the answer I would’ve given on a game show, so what element to all this caused me to write “No one really knows what’s coming next”? The researchers also studied the participants’ insulin sensitivity and genetic predisposition, two factors that I thought — as well as thousands of nutrition specialists, I suppose — would highly affect whether each diet was a long-term success or failure.

But neither did.

That’s the shocker to me, the proverbial two-by-four swung forcefully that hits me smack dab on the forehead.

Before reading the Stanford University clinical trial results, I would’ve never thought large numbers of insulin-sensitive individuals could meet with sustained success on low-fat diets because low-fat diets are predominantly high in carbohydrates and eating too many carbs can cause too much insulin to be secreted — in even non-insulin sensitive individuals.

Likewise, I was surprised that no correlation could be found between genetic predisposition and the success or failure of either diet. Although, I have my reservations about diets high in fats, I have found that consuming more fats and fewer carbs helps dieters who are genetically predisposed to putting on weight easily from doing so.

In short, the Stanford study that the medicos call the DIETFITS ends the debate on whether low-fat or low-car diets are better for weight loss because both produced similar weight loss averages, around 12 pounds.

But some individuals in the study lost more than 60 pounds. Some gained as many as 20 pounds.

And since you are an individual and not an average, and the study found no link between genetic predisposition or insulin sensitivity and weight loss, the end of the debate is of little help to you.

But the ongoing advice I give to you is: See yourself as a science project and experiment, experiment, experiment.