This article [1] is a good writeup of the study (with the original study linked) and does a very good job at contextualizing the results and limitations, alternative viewpoints, and criticisms. My takeaway is, while a very interesting pilot study, the small sample size, lack of a control group, lack of an alternative group that ate the two diets in opposite order, possible confounding factors including exercise while outside the metabolic chamber, etc. don’t make this study any kind of smoking gun.
[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/59012
Some people can’t wait for the data to come in, they’re suffering now, especially when special interest groups that want people to be vegetarian muddy the waters with agenda studies. All I can trust is how I feel personally eating different ways, and eating whole cuts of meat is keeping me from vomiting up my stomach acid in the middle of the night as my “completely normal stomach” (according to my doctor) tries to digest my trachea.
Refined sugar and carbs are high in calories and low in nutrients. If you eat 2000 (or appropriate for you expenditure) calories of brocoli, you ain't getting overweight.
Additionally, most people are addicted to sugar and refined carbs. Half the problem with diets is getting over that. It is likely the problem defined as satiety--but really just cravings.
We are just starting to get more Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials on diets and such. Will never be perfect, but there is just not enough highly controlled research as it is very hard to implement. But I think with keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, all fighting to claim to be most healthiest diet, there are folks starting to put money into researching them on equal footing. So we will see.
I think to summarize Michael Pollan, eat whole food, not too much and mostly plants is probably a good bet on healthy diet.