Amen.
There’s plenty of N=1 blog posts made by people showing the results of 5000 calories/day in fat versus 5000 calories/day carbs. Yes, the difference is dramatic in how much weight is gained - but BOTH tests usually result in a gain in weight with that much food consumed.
I really wish people would stop saying things like “calories don’t matter” or “throw out your scale, it’s lying to you”. People interpret these statements…incorrectly (to be kind about it).
How much food you eat matters. Overeating is overeating. Some of us have mixed-up satiety signals, and we have to account for that somehow. That’s why I always throw out some caution when people generalize the statement of “eat fat to satiety”.
The number on your scale might matter to you - it might not. Maybe measurements are better for you. But that scale number is a metric like any other, and to say “it doesn’t matter” will mean very little when you step on one during your physical required to qualify you for a decent life insurance policy.
Bashing CICO is also pointless. CICO isn’t “bad” or “wrong”. It just “is”. It’s an arithmetic issue, and it’s kind of pointless arguing against simple math. The problem (as I see it) is when people don’t apply the principles of how differently your body reacts to carbs versus fat. But that doesn’t make CICO any less valid from an arithmetic standpoint. Maybe you can eat 3500 calories a day when it’s 90% fat and 9% protein (versus only 2500 calories a day when it’s the SAD.) It doesn’t make “CICO” any less valid.