Agreed, but a lot of this is just arguing over what "diet" means.

Short-term dietary changes (sometimes just called "diets") do not work -- at least not for a long time. Long-term dietary changes (i.e. changes to your "diet") work for a long time.

Low-carb diets do work.

They might just work because they make it easy to eat less - very simple rule to follow that rules out most unhealthy snacking.

When you look at ketogenic diets being used to control epilepsy you realise there is likely more to it than just behavioural.

You're also less hungry when you restrict carbs (bread, pasta, sweets, etc.).

They also might just work because they train your body to run off its energy reserves. Even in a "healthy" high carb diet, you are still requiring a constant intake of fruit/grains.

As do high-carb diets. The issue is one of keeping to the strict dieting requirements. The article states the issue being that diets, on average, enable you to lose 5kg over a year. This is not successful weight loss.

> And although there was a slight benefit to higher-fat diets that were also low in carbohydrates, Hall says that this difference — which is about 1 kilogram — is clinically meaningless.

Nope. Did you read the article? They're as effective as other diets over the long run.

You just said that they don't work, but they do work. Just as well as anything else does.