I bot agree and beg to differ having read a number of original studies, systematic reviews (the few good ones there are) and other kind of reviews on this subject. I have done this since my studies require me to do so, that said im not (that much) biased.
First of all, if you read the text you're referring to it says:
"This form of “cardio” takes well less than half the time (typically 12 to 20 minutes) of traditional long-distance cardio and leads to better results."
It leads to better results in test groups (I assume there have been test groups, i cant find any sources which to me is unacceptable when trying to be a reliable and serious source), but it's not saying that it's a more efficent kind of exercise when it comes to burned kcal/workout. Since there's no source to read I can only speculate how that result was obtained. Most probable is what many other studies have shown: that the most efficent kind of exercise (when the aim is burning fat or weight loss) is a pain in the ass and many people quit since it's too hard.
Im not trying to be an ass here, just wanna shed some light on what alot of people are, quite commonly, missing when reading these kind of stuff. I mean, it sounds great "just" spendning 10-20 minutes on high-intensity training instead of having a bore 60+ minutes jogging, and to most people the 10-20 minute work-out is the best way to go since alot of (many previously untrained/not in good shape) people get injured or stop doing the tougher/more time-consuming work-out earlier compared to the high-intensity one.
Agreed: The short kind of training is best for the mainpart of people.
Though, the (few) ones who can and will stick to the more time consuming and "more painful" exercise will gain more weight-loss and get a better protection from heart and vessel diseases (among others).