Limiting caloric intake (diet) below caloric output (exercise, etc) is the only effective way to lose weight, excluding literally cutting it off. Just because people struggle at doing so doesn't mean that it's not effective.
The issue with the human body is that psychological effects are actually physical effects and therefore entirely relevant. The human body is not a mere automobile into which you pour gas, you push a gas pedal, and it just goes. That's the entire problem. You can't even treat a cat like that, let alone a human.
The psychological consequences are part of the equation and disregarding them and trying to pretend they don't exist is essentially taking out all the complex variables out and solving a simple equation nobody cares about. Kind of like programming GPS using Newtonian physics and then being surprised it's off constantly. There are more complex laws at stake here and we don't understand them very well. Moralization is effectively a cop out. "They're too lazy, stupid, or otherwise inferior to me to do this theoretically simple thing" is the same as: "I have no idea what's going on."
Limiting caloric intake leads to weight loss. So why are people not limiting their calorie intake? Then consider what kind of people are more or less likely to limit their calorie intake. So on and so forth. The equation becomes a lot more complex and also a lot more interesting.
This is meta, but there really needs to be a better phrase for ideas/models that only seem good when ignoring important details. A good theory is also good in practice because it actually factors in the relevant details.
I get that the wiki article on low carb is rambling, but why HN :?