I would switch to your lodo principles in a heartbeat if there was measurable imperial evidence that it produced superior beer. From what I see, there isn't. There are two men on the internet telling everyone who will listen about how great it is, and plugging their website at every opportunity. And comments like the one above are condescending absolutions. Sorry man, but talking down to people like that and implying people that don't adhere to your brewing technique are not striving for better beer is just rude.
OFF TOPIC: Quite a few brewers, here and elsewhere, are seeing great results by incorporating aspects of the Low Oxygen process. As of recently, positive results are coming from active members on this forum.
We put the website together to revamp the image of the process. We have offered up the spreadsheet for free, a wealth of academic and technical information for free, and worked to craft a process document that offered the incremental approach that people were interested in. We don't benefit from doing so in any other way other than to help out.
As far as EMPIRICAL evidence is concerned, I can't find one shred of the Low Oxygen process that wasnt developed using the empirical method and seeing that many people are experiencing the same results (all results that seem to coincide with all the literature written on the subject) I struggle to find error in such a good body of information.
If you are looking for blind testing to give you the go ahead on whether to pull the trigger on Low Oxygen or not, i'd say skip it and do a mini-mash. Let your taste buds decide for you.
In the end, all the information is on the table and people are now deciding to give it a try. They are liking the results.
BACK ON TOPIC: I was working on aspects of the spreadsheet when Bryan was testing batch after batch of S-189 yeast. It had major flavor and performance drawbacks IN HIS brewery. Take that for what it's worth. Flocculation was poor and the flavor was lacking.