Technically that article and the science behind it seems to be saying that calorie restriction is a bad idea and strengthening the argument for low carbing (just skimmed the mail argument but have read lots on this study).
When you restrict calories, even if it's not hugely - you create a calorie deficit that makes your body think there isn't enough food around. Your body gradually rewrites itself the more you lose into being more hungry and more obsessed with food - reasoning that when supplies are plentiful again you'll need to build up fat reserves for the next period of famine.
Low carb isn't about calorie restriction. Technically on low carb you should lose even at maintenance level calories because you'll have changed the type of fuel your body burns. So your body doesn't assume it's starving and shouldn't trigger you to overeat in the way it might after giving up a low calorie diet. At 'the very least the effect shouldn't be -as bad- if you lose weight low carbing.
I suspect the problem is most of us did low calorie first.
Still I don't really like the suggestion that dieters are 'doomed' to regain or that we can't help ourselves when it comes to giving in to cravings. It makes it harder and it can feel like the odds are against us but people can and do lose weight and keep it off. We can all do it, it would just be nice if people appreciated what a fight it is instead of saying it's laziness, greediness or just a case of eating less/ moving more.
Being overweight, I feel more and more, is not an issue of how intelligent, how disciplined, how good we are as human beings - though that seems to be how the world judges us. It's a question of luck.
It's a complex business, this weight thing. I don't believe it's ever quite as simple as 'eat less, move more'.