Taubes isn't taken seriously by most dieticians and nutrition researchers we talk to (I work at a nutrition startup).

I'd say that if there is any value to Taubes, it is this:

Different foods, given the same calories, will fill you up or nourish you at varying degrees.

300 calories of oreo cookies isn't the same as eating a banana and some chicken.

The main practical benefit people get from low carb, paleo, etc is that they're eating less sugar and junk, and thus eating healthy food with better overall satiety. As a result, they lose weight because they're eating fewer calories.

You can lose weight eating twinkies, it's just hard to do because it's bad for your health, not nutritious, and leaves you feeling hungry because it's all carbs.

A more scientific and less paleo-obsessed way to think about carbohydrates is this:

Carbs are fuel, if you're an athlete, you have a use for them. If you live a sedentary lifestyle, excess fuel isn't going to do you any favors.

Adjust accordingly.

In the end: calories in, calories out. Humanity hasn't defeated the laws of thermodynamics. It's just a question of how easy and healthy it is to maintain a sub-maintenance caloric intake.

Edit:

Okay people, I just got done saying low carb made sense if you weren't an athlete, what exactly are you arguing against? I agree with you guys, I just think the reasoning and rationale should be taken in the context of current nutrition research and not some demagogue's book that is obsessed with a dietary aesthetic rather than data.