The calorie-in/calorie-out model is most likely (almost certainly) not so overpoweringly important that all other aspects of dieting are minimized to the point that they are negligible.
That would mean the interaction of food choices and the hormonal system would be negligible, that the interaction between foods and the microbiome would be negligible, and the presence or lack of micronutrients is negligible.
Calorie count is definitely important, but to claim that any other components of the diet (food choice, timing, etc) are negligible is an incredibly strong claim with evidence building against it as metabolism is more thoroughly explored
I'd say it's an incredibly strong claim that they aren't negligible.
Most research I'm finding says that your BMR may drop by like 10% with a classic calorie restricted diet (which itself accounts for about 75% of total calories burned in a day).
So what are we talking here at most? 150-200 calories a day if a diet is able to completely stop a decrease in BMR as you lose weight? Less if it's not?
What's the line that makes it worth it? A 100 calorie per day optimization is not worth it to me when I have to drop 500-1000 a day to have any real weight loss.
That would mean the interaction of food choices and the hormonal system would be negligible, that the interaction between foods and the microbiome would be negligible, and the presence or lack of micronutrients is negligible.
Calorie count is definitely important, but to claim that any other components of the diet (food choice, timing, etc) are negligible is an incredibly strong claim with evidence building against it as metabolism is more thoroughly explored