Let's examine the logic of the issue.
If Eat less then Lose weight
Does it follow that if Lose Weight, then they Ate Less? Nope, that's something that Tom Naughton believes. So if you don't necessarily want to starve yourself then you can try other things. What might those be?
If Become Healthy then Lose weight. This is demonstrably true to anyone who is familiar with the science of it. It emphatically does not follow that if Lose Weight then someone Became Healthy. Tom Naughton became less healthy on his Mcdonalds diet, and he definitely become less healthy on his low fat low calorie diet (remember that scene? )
So what is most reasonable to do? Become Healthy and Lose Weight simultaneously or any other combination of the terms used? Obviously you want both, so you should try to become as healthy as possible by reading Mark's blog and book and striving for health, not just to lose weight now.
Besides, he might have been able to lose weight for a month but there are a lot of examples of people who go on traditional diets who lose some weight but have a lot more to go and no way to do it. They are hungry and depressed and aren't meeting their goals and when they start eating more food again they bloat back up and it was all for nothing. The way to make weight loss sustainable is to become healthy. Accumulating of body fat should be seen as more the symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself.
Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.
Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!