It isn’t “calories in / Calories out”. LOTS of evidence now. No one familiar with the science would argue it is just calories.
Calories DO play a role. And extremes of calorie cutting WILL result in weight loss. But that is a STUPID way of doing it because there ARE ways a fat person can gradually reset their body.
I’ve done diets for nearly 50 years. What I’ve done the last 3 is working FAR better than any diet I tried before.
A variety of good videos with evidence here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/lowcarbdownunder/videos
Yeah, it is - at least for the vast majority. Unless you've repealed the first law of thermodynamics, if you burn more energy (calories) than you consume, you will lose weight. You can't get something from nothing.
It is most definitely calories in/ calories out. Over meaningful periods of time anyway.
But it damn sure isn’t a linear process. That’s what makes it screwy. The key is to find out what the metabolic rate is, the charts are a little optomistic on that. I think they don’t want to scare people off. My mom was an RN, and I think her ancient Taber’s Cyclopedia says something like “900 to 1100” calories for moderate weight loss and “600 to 800 calories” for more rapid weight loss.
It sort of checks out with fat having (about) 4000 calories per pound. It isn’t going to be a linear decline, but it does burn off if caloric intake is reduced. We can’t live on air, though people have tried. I can see why fasting is popular, I’m never less hungry than when I fast, and a too-big meal invites more of the same by causing more carb cravings.