comment: >
  
  In my life I've lost weight many times, and each time, I've gained most of all of it back relatively quickly after stopping my diet. In fact, this happens at least once a year for me.
  Although I'm trying to change your view, I actually agree that it's easy to -lose- weight. I can lose 10 pounds in a week when I find the motivation, time, and opportunity to begin dieting again.
  But what about keeping the weight off? That's the part that's extremely difficult for most fat and obese people. It's partly cultural. People love to meet up and eat together, especially going out for food instead of cooking, and especially have desert. But one could say that's just not being motivated enough if you get tempted, right?
  However, the bigger issue is actually a physical one. Most people have a "set point," which is a weight level the body wants to maintain. If you have excess calories and you are at or above your set point, you'll get full quicker, so you won't eat as much. If you are below your set point, you will get hungrier and hungry more often. It becomes a test of endurance. Imagine if a drug addict got withdrawal worse the longer they didn't use the drug instead of it getting better and more manageable over time.
  This is why it can be simultaneously easy to lose weight, but difficult to not be obese for so many people. Their bodies are demanding them to eat too much every day, and it's near impossible to continually ignore that and live with it for years without slipping up.
context: /u/CanInotScrubIn (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I have a simple caveat [1], as well as some complicated disagreements [2].
  
  The simple caveat is that it depends on your starting point. I've lost 60 lbs so far and am now what most would consider "pretty fit." I'd like to lose another five pounds to really define my abs. Losing that last five pounds has been a bitch. When I was 200+, losing five pounds meant making minor adjustments. There was a lot of room for small errors, like cheat days and whatnot. But going from 155 to 150 requires some very serious dedication, and you can easily lose a week of progress with one poorly balanced meal.
  The complicated disagreement is that more and more science is suggesting that the entire appetite, hunger, metabolic system, etc. are all intertwined in a very complicated, endocrinologically active system. There are hormones and such at play that we still don't understand. The big takeaway for me is that people have vastly different experiences when it comes to this area. There is a fundamental hormonal system that science is just scratching the surface of understanding. So what might seem like "I'm hungry, but I can push through it" for you could easily feel for someone else that their entire body is screaming "we are actually starving to death and you need to eat NOW!!!" Just like some people have severe allergies (their immune system freaking out over something small) while others just get a little sniffle - the body is complicated and we are biased towards our own experiences. >
  
  I agree with you that weight loss can be more difficult the further you progress. !delta awarded
  Regarding your point about new research, that is a fair one. Although, I still think that as long as you eat in a decent deficit (not extreme so as your BMR plummets), you have to lose weight just by the laws of physics. of course, the rate of weight loss may vary based on person to person >
  
  
  as long as you eat in a decent deficit (not extreme so as your BMR plummets), you have to lose weight just by the laws of physics
  
  Thanks for the delta! I agree with you on this point. I edited my second point a few times, but the point I was trying to make is that science is suggesting that the body's reaction to that deficit varies drastically from person to person. Some people might have a harder time maintaining a deficit because their bodies start freaking out, giving them brain fog, hunger pains, etc. and then releasing a shit ton of dopamine and serotonin when they do eat high-calorie foods. So it makes the struggle to maintain a deficit more difficult for those people, compared to someone who's body has a more mild hormonal response. >
  
  thank you for sharing this, I will look more into it. If this is indeed the case, and an individual's neurotransmitter response can vary to even a slight caloric deficit based on their genetic makeup, then weight loss can indeed be quite difficult for some people. another !delta awarded! >
  
  I would encourage you to check out Maintenance Phase. They are a podcast that talks about the health and wellness industry. Their episode on the science/history of calories was super interesting and very educational. >
  
  I've been a bodybuilder well over a decade and while I generally agree with you, weight loss is hard for so many of the reasons you stated.
  At the core, yes losing weight is simply burning more calories than you eat. As easy as that sounds, it usually isn't. It's not just about finding time to exercise or choosing the salad over the burger; it's about making a genuine commitment to your health every day regardless of the ups and downs.
  Because of the degree of complexities, let's just talk diet. Ultimately weight loss is 80% kitchen anyway.
  This is where nuance comes in. If you commit every day to an absolutely perfect diet, you'll lose weight. But that means meal prepping and being extremely conscious of your RMR and daily expenditure.
  Most people who are 9-5 are actually usually working well over that, and while yes, I'd argue that everyone has time for say a 30 minute jog, how about you throw in young children. Now you're getting up to go to work, you have to get home, feed/entertain your kids; if you have the energy to do any sort of exercise after that you're in better shape than me and I lift 5 days a week and run every other day for 40 minutes. 
  More nuance; eating too little will cause muscle loss and slow your metabolism to a crawl. You'll see rapid loss then hit a plateau, as our bodies are literally designed to store as much fat as possible.
  Also every person's metabolism is different, there are different body types that hold/gain weight (and muscle) easier, and those that have trouble gaining weight (or muscle) as well. The principle is the same, but I've trained guys that are significantly smaller than me and I had them eating more than me before they saw any growth.
  The same goes for weight loss; some genetic makeups are just unfortunate in that their body really fights to keep weight.
  Ultimately you're correct. Weight loss isn't hard, but it's almost entirely mental. You need to reprogram your entire lifestyle from activity, to what you put in your body and make it a conscious part of your life. No one is really taught this and "deprogramming" any bad habits is extremely hard. Especially people with an unhealthy relationship with food. Most extremely obese people have a very toxic relationship with food, as bad as any other addiction you could literally make the analogy that they are food alcoholics.
  So while weight loss isn't hard, changing your brain to adapt to a completely new lifestyle is brutal.
  I don't think I've ever met someone who lost a huge amount of weight say it was easy. I've seen people lose 80 lbs+ and it was a battle the entire time. Not with their body, but with their habits, lifestyle and routine; and something that you have to commit to every day. Just brushing it off and saying "they aren't dedicated enough," is a massive oversimplification. Tell that to someone who needs to lose 150 lbs and has been eating a certain way for 20+ years. It's like telling a smoker of 20+ years to stop on the spot.
  Finally the inverse is the same. I always have people come up to me and ask how I got so jacked and "what's my secret." I'm usually about 220 lbs & 7-9% bf year round and "I" find that "easy." The reality? I'm meal prepping every Sunday, I plan my day around food and the gym. But I've been doing it for well over a decade, it's literally as much as part of my lifestyle as anything else. But it took years of commitment and dedication, setting "rules" for cheat days, rarely drinking, etc. Most people would find it obsessive or bizarre, but it's no more bizarre than any other daily ritual. So while I'm on the extreme spectrum, even finding that middle ground can be tough and the bigger someone is, the harder it is to break habits. Working out is harder, eating healthy food can actually make a really obese person with sugar addictions feel sick, etc.
  Weight loss is simple, but it's not easy. >
  
  I wanna amplify this one with an anecdote.
  I lost 70lbs by cutting out all the unnatural sugar(anything that wasn't literally a vegetable), and artificial sweeteners (they made me crave sugar). That took a whole year, and I was HYPER dedicated. I was also miserable, terrible to be around, and frankly a bit angry at all times because my will power was always at zero.
  I had to consciously say no to all the foods I loved on a daily basis for a YEAR. 
  Side note, if you're American, do a little test next time you go to a supermarket, look for food that lacks sugar, and artificial sweeteners. And when you're done in the meat section you'll see how monumental what I chose to do was. It was a fucking struggle, and I hated every second of it. It worked though.
  Until I stopped. I'm back up again, though not nearly as high. I'm doing a significantly less extreme version of what I did before but it's agonizingly slow. 
  Point being, OP is looking for not 1, but 2 different lifestyle changes. One for weight loss, and one for weight maintenance. >
  
  
  Point being, OP is looking for not 1, but 2 different lifestyle changes. One for weight loss, and one for weight maintenance
  
  And weight maintenance is the hardest part.
  A lot of people do crash diets, (keto, fasting, etc) and the problem with every one of those is it isn't sustainable. I know Reddit is a huge fan of keto, but it's not something you can (or should) do indefinitely, and the problem I've seen time and time again; people will lose the weight they want, start introducing carbs again then quickly gain back 50% only to repeat it endlessly.
  Losing weight and keeping it off, is committing forever to simply eating healthier and making an effort to be as active as possible. For most folks this is really fucking hard and takes years to form those habits to where it's second nature. To your point, everything is loaded with sugar. The trick for me is that I basically eat the same meals every day. But again, I view food very abnormally. I enjoy it, but most people would get dead tired of eating egg whites/Oates for breakfast, chicken/rice for lunch, and some sort of protein/vegetable/complex carb for dinner. Every. Single. Day.
  I'm making assumptions but my guess is OP is young and probably never struggled with weight and/or has the time/resources that "make it easy," so he's making the assumption "it's easy for me, why shouldn't it be easy for everyone?"
  I'm in my mid thirties and keeping weight off is like a part time job; rather I have to dedicate hours on Sunday to cooking meals for the week, then run 40 minutes on my treadmill before work, then lift 1-2 hours M-F; while my goals are different, (extreme) I can say that's going to be extremely difficult for 90% of the population. It's also basically a hobby as much as playing video games every night or whatever. I sacrifice a lot of my free time "to my hobby," but I'm single without kids and have a fairly regular career that allows me the time.
  But your average folks who are just getting by, working themselves to death, even committing to a balanced, clean meals day in and day out is quite difficult. >
  
  You described my issues perfectly.
  Though to be clear, when I did my crash diet, keto hadn't yet made it into the mainstream, it was the Atkins diet that I modeled mine after.
  It was a nightmare for me because I LOVE to explore new foods. I legitimately love trying new cuisine, and restriction is hard on you mentally when you're like that.
  It's not that I CAN'T lose weight, cause I currently am, it's just that it's constant.
  I'd give you a !delta but I'm not sure the rules let me do that when we agree lol >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SpoonyDinosaur (2∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I feel like there's something weird about how this is phrased. Given your caveats, you say:
  
  I feel that too many people just don't have proper dedication and drive, and end up either not making any progress or gaining weight back (after losing it) due to these reasons.
  
  But, given how many people "don't have proper dedication and drive", I feel like your title leads to a weird semantic question about what makes something "easy". If something takes more dedication and drive than a large chunk of the population has, why would we call that "easy" or "easier than people make it seem"? If a person doesn't have strong willpower, doesn't that make it hard? Is there actually a factual claim people are making that you think is wrong, or are we just arguing about the definition of "easier"? >
  
  I think the whole argument about "I don't have enough willpower" is a cop out answer. How much willpower does it take to eat 200 calories less than maintenance? There are much more harder things in life. >
  
  I dunno, for a lot of people, it seems to take a lot of willpower. There being "harder things in life" is certainly true, but seems kind of irrelevant. Can we at least agree that given two tasks, all else being equal the one that requires more willpower is harder?
  FWIW, it's extremely easy for me. But my experience is pretty clearly not the same experience that others have. >
  
  Yes, I can agree that a tasking requiring more willpower may be harder than one that doesn't. However, in my opinion, that doesn't make it an overall hard task. >
  
  Right. But I guess it's unclear what you're actually saying here. Imagine a task. Now keep dialing up the required willpower to complete it. Eventually, surely there is a level of willpower required that a task becomes "hard", right?
  As for weight loss, there isn't some fixed willpower requirement. Willpower isn't even something that can be easily quantified. Different people will have an easier or harder time, and different people have different amounts of willpower. Whether or not it's "hard" is a measure of the gap. >
  
  Obviously willpower is subjective. I just don't think eating in a slight caloric deficit requires that much. I think most people would agree that having the willpower to not eat an extra piece of cake is significantly less that the willpower required to do a 24 hour fast. There's no "willpower scale" to quantify this, but I think it's common sense >
  
  And yet many people don't have that willpower, right? So what are we saying here?
  My suspicion is that you aren't really talking about this task being "easy" or "hard". It just seems obviously hard for many people. You just don't think highly of those people. >
  
  You'd be surprised at the percentage of the population who are not perfectly able-bodied, working in 9-5 office jobs, and free of debilitating trauma.  And your breezy estimate doesn't account for time for commuting, childcare, food preparation, cleaning the house, and so many other things.
  What about the large number of people who live in food deserts?  What about the fact that cheap food is poorly nutritious and consists mostly of empty carbs?  Weight management is an extremely complicated subject. >
  
  Financially secure means you can afford more than just rice and pasta. And even rice and beans can be OK, as long you add in some basic proteins.   
  Food deserts are similar: large bags of rice and beans, go out once in a while to get frozen vegetables and meats. 
  You don't need to be PERFECTLY able bodies. I'd say at least 80% of Americans are able bodied, working less than 60 hours, and don't have "debilitating trauma" as in it doesn't cripple them like severe depression.
  Yes, it is harder, quite a bit harder than just grabbing instant ramen. But it's not harder than any other task in life. >
  
  "It's easy, just eat the same boring thing every single day" >
  
  That's what most diets are when you're poor. >
  
  What a great way to live. Work a shit job, no vacations, eating beans and rice. >
  
  You've never been poor, have you? >
  
  
  You've never been poor, have you?
  
  I have absolutely been poor. Cheap, shitty food is one of the only pleasures many people have when they're poor. >
  
  That's a choice. Just like drinking or smoking will also be a choice.  
  As with any diet, willpower will be needed. >
  
  I don't think that is the argument here. The reason most people don't want to do that choice is - what's the fucking point? 
  Sure, you'll be lean and maybe a little more healthy... But you're still miserable, working the same job everyday, barely scraping by. And on top of that you can't even enjoy eating the shitty stuff you like or drinking or smoking. They don't call it a poor man's poison for nothing. For a lot of people that is the only thing they have (sadly) and telling them to just quit is spitting in their face. >
  
  You say “for these reasons”, what exactly are the reasons you think it’s easy to lose weight? 
  Is it purely because you have had an easier time losing weight then others?
  Throughout your entire post the only semi-tangible reasoning stated for your argument was that mainstream media portrays weight loss as difficult. Other then that your post makes use of the words “I feel” a lot, because it’s almost entirely anecdotal. 
  Your post doesn’t even have much to refute at all because the only thing that backed up your statement was “I feel x”. How am I supposed to change your view when the reasons for you’re view are entirely based off uneducated “feelings”? 
  I’ll tell you why I think it’s hard for a lot of people to lose weight. It’s because the vast majority of people who are overweight will tell you it’s very hard for them to lose weight. That’s the very thing that constitutes something being “hard”. If 80% of nurses drop out of nursing school, it’s fair to say that going through nursing school is hard. If everyone whoo went there passed, it wouldn’t be considered hard. 
  Maybe weight loss is easy for you and people you know, but for the majority of people it is extremely hard. That’s the very thing that makes it generally considered difficult in the first place. >
  
  
  I’ll tell you why I think it’s hard for a lot of people to lose weight. It’s because the vast majority of people who are overweight will tell you it’s very hard for them to lose weight. That’s the very thing that constitutes something being “hard”.
  
  I can agree with you here. The only true way to quantify a task as being difficult as is asking those who have attempted it, what their opinions are about it. !delta awarded! I guess the next question is what makes it difficult for those people, aside from the caveats I mentioned above which I excluded. >
  
  IMO the reason it’s hard is because of an accumulation of addictive sugars that weren’t naturally present a few hundred years ago, environments that promote idleness, and a lack of mental grit amongst virtually everyone. 
  The last point is, in my opinion, the reason for the majority of personal issues in the modern world. Its something that could be expanded upon with an entire book but to sum it up I think technology = easier options and easier options = less mental grit. When people have two options they are biologically inclined to choose the easier of the two, but they should have enough mental grit to resist temptations for their best long term interests. The lack of mental grit that technology brews leads to people that stay terminally online, choose to date and meet people through apps (even if they know this isn’t the best option for them), and especially people whoo choose to eat a donut instead of resisting that craving (becoming overweight). This lack of mental grit also makes it harder for people to change themselves after they have already found themselves overeating on the daily. >
  
  Idk if you can teach it or not and I’m not saying you can or can’t. 
  I’m just using the term to describe the lack of ability to choose harder options. >
  
  I am a dietitian. One point I haven’t seen yet is the aspect of socioeconomic status related to obesity. There is a direct correlation between the two. This is being passed down generationally. How do you expect someone to maintain a healthy weight if:
  1. They have never grown up having a parent that knew how to or could afford to provide healthy meals consistently
  2. Possibly needed to use food banks to acquire food which typically has more pre-packaged food items 
  3. Possibly does not even have the tools to make healthy foods (stove, microwave, utensils, sink, dishes are all luxuries not everyone has) 
  4. Possibly does not even have any bit of information on what a healthy diet entails or that they are even not eating healthy food 
  Socioeconomic aspects are complicated and absolutely impact someone’s ability to lose weight and there are never “simple” or “easy” solutions. >
  
  I never understood this argument. You save money by losing weight since you buy less food >
  
  You can get unhealty food for dirt cheap. >
  
  I'll offer a counter argument, even though I agree with you. 
  It's simple. Not easy. 
  What is simple is reading an Ikea booklet to build furniture. What is not easy is actually doing it, and discerning the different screws from each other (I know the bags are numbered but shit changes, holes aren't made correctly, etc.) 
  What makes it not easy? 
  - Mental illness 
  - Having kids (between working 9-5, and feeding your kid, paying bills, you literally have no down time) 
  - Society celebrating and normalizing fatness (to be clear - you shouldn't be treated badly because you're fat - but it's not normal. Weighing 300 lbs is not normal, nor is it healthy). 
  - There's a new medication coming out which got approved to help people with weight loss. So instead of fixing underlying issues, I'm willing to bet it will be abused as a shortcut to a healthy lifestyle, which will only further make it 'harder' to make good decisions (why go to a gym when you can take a pill and eat pizza). 
  I'm exaggerating in many cases, but I believe that exaggeration is why it's not easy. 
  Solutions are simple, but it doesn't make it easy. I work my ass off at the gym to keep losing weight. And I do. But shits not easy at all. 
  I'm seeing progress, despite some weak days, but I'm not comfortable nor happy with my body or with being overweight and I'm taking steps to improve myself. Every day, I get happier and happier and my mood has improved significantly after 6 months of dedication. But it certainly wasn't easy. Worked my actual ass off at the gym to achieve the results I've had so far >
  
  Regarding your point about mental illness making it not easy, I would consider that as one of the caveats that I mentioned. 
  I do think it is easy though. Weight loss is basically calories in vs calories out. Even if you're so busy with kids that you may not have time to exercise regularly, all you have to do is eat less. By consuming less than you expend, you have to lose weight by loss of physics. Of course, you may not be lean and may not have muscular definition, and you may not even be fit, but you WILL lose weight. I think becoming fit, strong, and lean (aka not "skinny fat") are much more difficult than just losing weight on the scale. >
  
  
  Weight loss is basically calories in vs. calories out.
  
  Getting rich is basically money in vs. money out. Doesn't mean it's easy. >
  
  The thing is you don't know what will make you enough money to become rich and you have to actively do something to achieve it. You know objectively what to eat to loose weight. If you are, for example, a male adult with a regular lifestyle you already know how many calories you consume on average unless you have some sort of hormonal condition or something. You don't even have to actively do anything, just eat less calories. It couldn't be easier. >
  
  How is eating less not actively doing something? >
  
  Because you just have to not do something. You literally do less than what you are doing now >
  
  As a fat guy no it isn't that simple. It is literally an addiction. Try telling an alcoholic to just "not drink beer" after all it's NOT doing something it should be easy right? Tell a smoker to "just quit" it's not doing something it should be easy.
  People like me who are overweight and struggle with obesity are no different. I have an addiction, a problem. I have trouble NOT snacking in the same way a smoker had trouble NOT smoking. 
  I know addiction to food doesn't seem like a real thing but it is. The pleasure centers of my brain light up like a Christmas tree when I'm eating same as a drug addicts. If it were easy no one would be fat. >
  
  Being fat and having a food addiction are not the same thing. Majority of people are not addicted to food and that is another condition altogether. >
  
  Having a food addiction quite frequently leads to obesity. You can be overweight due to medical issues like thyroid, diabetes, and other endocrine disorders. You can be overweight because a condition prevents proper exercise.
  You can also be overweight because you have a food addiction causing you to crave unhealthy foods and overeat. I don't know why this is controversial.
  My default IS to eat. Not eating requires mental and emotional effort on my part. Again if it were easy no one would be fat >
  
  Those are exceptions to the vast majority of people. I used to be fat and now I'm not super fit or anything but it literally was way more similar to someone not doing their homework cause they are lazy and would rather play game or something. A lot of people just, me included, just eat bad because it tastes good, the just need a little discipline. Vast majority of fat people are not addicted nor have a hormonal problem. >
  
  Your caveats cover like 90% of people who are obese, if not more.
  As someone who has weighed up to 400 lbs, and has been technically obese since middle school, and am now in my 40's weighing under 300 lbs, I'll say this. Losing 10 pounds IS easy. I've gone to bed and woken up 2 pounds lighter. I've lost a pound or 2 on days where I didn't drink enough fluids. A stomach bug can get me to drop 10 pounds in a few days. I can watch what I eat and lose 10 pounds in a few weeks.
  Here's the problem. Obese people don't need to lose 10 pounds. We need to fundamentally change our relationship with food and activities/exercise. We need to find a way to quiet that inner voice that almost always wants to eat. We need to stop the denial/reward cycle that makes us fail at dieting. We need to figure out our NUTRITIONAL needs, and focus on meeting that instead of only focusing on caloric needs. We need education on good nutrition, from someone who understands what unique struggles we have with food. We need education on exercise from people who understand that we are starting (often) at almost atrophy, and trying to workout with another person's weight on our backs.
  I've been a very active person my entire life, even being obese. I've worked out 3 times a week or more from teens to early 30's, and now again for the last 3 years. I've done multi week group and solo hikes while obese. I've lost over 100 pounds from keto. And I put it back on. I've lost over 100 pounds by just eliminating processed foods and only drinking water or black coffee. I have never lasted more than a week counting calories/points. 
  I've given every obese excuse, and heard them all from friends/family. I can tell you, from first hand experience and from the outside looking in, that the reason more than half of Americans are obese has very little to do with dedication and motivation. >
  
  I've been overweight the whole time I've been cycling to high school and university. COVID has now killed that and now I'm obese, I now work remote trying to move away from abusive parents. It's much easier if it's something you have to do because it takes you 30mins each way by bike. I used to enjoy recreational cycling but now all of my friends moved on and live different lives so it's much harder and moved 1 hour by train >
  
  So... question: if it's so easy, why do more than 90% of weight losses fail, with the person regaining their weight within 5 years?
  And note: this is worse than just having stayed the same weight, because much of the damage is done while gaining it... you'd literally be better off, medically, just staying the same weight, 90% of the time.
  I think no task with a 10% success rate can be called "easy" for any sane or rational definition of "easy". >
  
  Agree with you that low success rate for a task can not justify it being easy. !delta awarded. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hacksoncode (487∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Smoker should just quit smoking it’s not that hard.
  Alcoholics should just quit drinking it’s not that hard. 
  At the end of the day all you just have to do is avoid one thing. Your view lacks perspective from the people who go through. Bad relationships with food developer are really difficult to change. It’s nice you don’t have to go through it, but to say weight loss is easy is very disrespectful to people who struggle with it. Weight loss has simple mechanics but applying those can be very difficult for the majority of people. >
  
  While quitting smoking is truly straightforward and you can do it in one day if you so wish, quitting alcohol cold turkey can actually kill you. >
  
  Some people find it difficult. There is an abundance of information, much of it conflicting, it can be overwhelming to start this journey. 
  Simple calorie counting doesn't always work. Plateaus often happen and can be demoralizing when you feel you're doing everything you can and feel like "jeez what more can I do"  Many people experience common and uncomfortable hunger. It can be difficult to push through when your body is screaming at you to eat. 
  Elimination diets can be hard too, especially in social settings. Allergies don't help either. Imagine being whole foods plant based with a nut, gluten, and soy allergy. Imagine being keto with a nut and dairy allergy, or with gall bladder issues. 
  There's also the issue of losing muscle mass instead of fat mass. Most people want to lose fat mass. 
  Weight loss also gets harder the less weight you have. If you're a bodybuilder trying to shred/trim it can be really difficult to shave off even 1-2% body fat. 
  But all in all it depends what you want by "people make it seem" and "easier". How much easier? How hard do people make it seem?
  Edit: forgot to mention genetics and biology play a part in all of the above and weight loss in general. >
  
  
  Simple calorie counting doesn't always work.
  
  It always works. Unless you mean that people don't count correctly or realise they need to reduce their calorie intake as the diet goes on, which is a fair point. >
  
  It does not always work. Your body can lower it's energy expenditure to account for less energy coming in. And it's not healthy or sustainable to keep lower calorie intake in response. 
  Read up on it, not all calories are created equal. Your body reacts in different ways to different dietary patterns. >
  
  
  Your body can lower it's energy expenditure to account for less energy coming in
  
  Yes, that just means the calories out side of the equation drops. That's why I said people need to reduce their calorie intake as time goes on. >
  
  And at what point do you stop doing that? As I said it's not healthy or sustainable. Better to just fix what you eat. Less hunger, better health. To each their own though. >
  
  
  As I said it's not healthy or sustainable. 
  
  It's perfectly healthy and sustainable. In fact there's no other way of losing weight. All diets come down to CICO. 'Fixing what you eat' means eating healthy, which means less calories, which means exactly the same thing happens. And if it doesn't mean less calories, e.g you eat healthy food but lots of it, then you won't lose weight. You cannot possibly win against Physics. >
  
  
  For example many fibers and starches, while they are caloric, aren't completely digested by the body.
  
  This is where we are getting our wires crossed. 'Calories in' means the calories taken in by the body. Which is also why in the studies you mentioned, low carb diets are better. All this means is that the 'calories' listed on a packet of food are not completely accurate, which is already common knowledge in fitness circles. 
  That said, they're still pretty damn close. I'm a body builder and aim to gain 1lbs per week. I use the listed calorie info on the packet as my guide and I find I gain the expected weight each week. >
  
  That we can definitely agree on. Although even for the calories you absorb, depending on what they were they are allocated differently by the body but certainly will be accounted for at that point by the "calories out" portion (expenditure, etc.). Depends what your goals are ofc.
  But yeah I'm not saying CICO isn't a thing, just I think most times it's thrown out it's oversimplified and misleading especially for people who don't necessarily know better. I do understand though it's simple for a general layperson to follow. 
  I have my partner as an example earlier. Once COVID hit she stopped gym entirely and went on keto. Without calorie counting and almost certainly eating more than when she was she still lost 30lb in 6 months, breaking the plateau she hit when she was calorie counting and no longer feeling hungry and miserable. That showed me first hand that what you eat really does make a huge difference on things.