The motte of "calories in, calories out" is a purely descriptive post-facto theory.
It is a also a predictive ex ante theory. It successfully predicts the change in your weight on the basis of your persistent net energy balance.
The bailey of "calories in, calories out" is: "You complain about not losing weight? Just eat less and exercise more, dummy! You say you already tried that, but it didn't work for you?
... then continue. Eat LESS and exercise MORE. Still doesn't work? Eat LESS and exercise MORE. I guarantee that at some point you will start losing weight
What people who complain about this actually want: a strategy that fat people could use to lose weight without negative side-effects...
Sure. People want a lot of things. I want the ability to fly, it's just that pesky gravity that gets in the way. Wouldn't it be great to jump off a cliff and soar without the negative side-effects of going splat! shortly thereafter?
Just a few comments ago you accused me of strawmanning, and now here you come with a comment that I wouldn't have ascribed to the "calories in, calories out" fans, because I would think this would be too strawmanish. Yet, such opinions apparently do exist in the wild.
From another point of view, thank you for showing me that it was meaningful to start debating this topic.
Okay, so...
Let's assume that "still doesn't work" for some people means "when I try eating even less, I am so weak that I can barely move my body; yet my weight doe...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "