Macros matter - secondary to calories - when trying to lose weight.
Considering that either of them being out of the target range for your goal would cause a problem, that makes them pretty much equal.
Macros affect the type of weight lost.
Yea, and that's actually an extremely important factor.
Carbs offer quick energy in what sense? Fat can be broke down and used for energy as quickly
Some cells require glucose for one thing. Muscle glycogen is another issue. so that generally what you need before, during, and after a workout. In general carb sources digest faster than fat sources, although there are exceptions. With simple carbs you even skip a step in metabolism. I didn't realize this was a controversial concept.
I'm curious where you believe I've stated anything the opposite?
Uh, this thread for one.... You said it's all calories in/out and thermodynamics in a couple different places. That's not consistent with what you are saying here though. Perhaps we are thinking you are saying something other than you are saying because you are making such a gross oversimplification.
If you're hooked up to an IV, then yea it's calories in/out, and thermodynamics proves that, just like you say. In other situations that is a gross oversimplification that appears to be at odds with other things you are saying because of how badly oversimplified it is. So if you would say what you mean instead of repeating media catch phrases, that sound like they were written by three year olds, in order to be easy for the general public to brainlessly mouth, in their drone-like way, then I would know what you mean, and would not find your statements contradictory.
This is not a simple arithmetic problem. It could never, by any stretch of the imagination be equated with one. Is said arithmetic problem in there somewhere? Yes, but it's just one little, albeit important piece.
So equating the part with the whole can be a bit unclear. If you're playing build-your-own-synecdoche, unbeknownst to me, It's going to look like you're just contradicting yourself.
I'm simply saying I can eat a pound of candy a day and still lose 95+% fat while on a diet.
If I replace "pound" with the more realistic amount that you probably meant, then yea, it wouldn't be as good, but it could be done. Things like this tend to assume healthy population, but in this case, a less than healthy group is a very large factor. So that can cloud the issue a little, as what might work for people without X problem, doesn't work quite as well for people with that problem, simply because the problem in question is a malfunction of a metabolic pathway. So if you talk about the majority in total, and I talk about the majority of the "I need help" folks, it's going to get confusing because we aren't talking about the same thing; just as an example.
Dubs seems to believe calories don't matter,
No, he believes counting the calories doesn't matter, and that it happens in adjusting macros. So you're making a straw man argument there via a....wait for it....oversimplification. I'm seeing a pattern here.
the fact that calories in vs calories out is a scientific fact
(facepalm) Ok, I'm going to assume you're not going to contradict yourself in the same post......... To that statement I would say "insufficient data". What calories, in and out of where? What are the inputs and outputs here. Then there is the context you use it in. It seems like you are saying this same statement, and then equivocating so that "calories in/out" can mean one of two things depending on which argument you are having.
So I have to figure out that when you say these things like it's just calories in and out, you mean......
Calories are just the most important factor, but not the only one.*
* Statement makes no claim on type of weight lost when considering macros to be only secondary to this, ignoring that important factor can lead to muscle loss, and less fat loss. The author is not responsible for your misunderstanding of the above.
I think that means you agree with me, but I could be wrong about that.