The results, at least as reported by the Times piece, aren’t what most dieters want to hear. The people who kept weight off were those who basically continued some form of calorie restriction indefinitely
If your daily energy intake matches your total daily energy expenditure, it's not calorie restriction it's calorie sufficiency. I don't see why he's playing into the sour grapes/defeatist tone of the article.
More to the point, he has a pretty novel theory there about lean tissue with an all-too-convenient circumstance where it is "invisible." I'll keep an open mind though and see how well he backs it up.
Edit: Oh man, Paul's weight loss diet has buoyed my faith in mainstream (such as it is) paleo. Finally someone is giving real advice. Everyone's going around in circles when we all should have just asked the body builders what they do. Sure, some of them dick around with cyclic ketogenic diets etc. but the majority of them over the years eat at least 100-150g of carbs, a bunch of protein, and cut way back on fat. It's hard for me to read further with my eyes welling up....