He's basically saying that weight change is equal to mass in - mass out (MIMO) rather than Calories in - Calories out (CICO). Seems to make sense.

It's the first topic in the Arrow:
https://michaeleades.substack.com/p/the-arrow-111
(Also see his reply to my query about protein in the comments).

And here's a recent talk he gave: https://youtu.be/0mnhha9JfCM

Glad to see he's still in there.

It is interesting that nobody thought of this before and I like how the name of the CICO fanatic is never stated since his main reason for pushing CICO is because he doesn't agree with the carb/insulin hypothesis.

Thanks, Dan. Hadn't seen this talk before. Not only is it informative, as Kevin Hall's "study" still reverberates among many, especially Taubes and Attia who found the funding for it, and the results were not what the low carb acolytes were expecting. I've always had a problem with the CICO hypothesis given that the laws of thermodynamics are far simpler to apply to mechanical engines/systems than mammalian metabolism. I like the new thinking, and it provides a foundation for more discussions and studies on human nutrition, eating, food mass, energy, gains, and losses.

I read the whole thing waiting for the punchline. It's hard to see if somebody's trying to keep a straight face in text. I'm somewhat doubtful. I still say something else--like, say, appetite being affected by defense of glycogen stores, or energy supply to the brain or something like that, being more important. At the same time, yeah, I guess it's more complicated switching between disposing of carbon and hydrogen etc. when you're switching back and forth between glucose and fat-dominant metabolism.