Agreed. I've read his book on diabetes and intermittent fasting. I have a problem with anybody who makes the claim that there is more to weight loss than "calories in calories out". There isn't.
Why must the body adhere to a reductionist calories-in/calories-out model as if it’s a simple furnace, when it’s clearly vastly different from a furnace?
Why the need to ignore the involvement of neurotransmitters, hormones, enzymes, organ function, emotions, microbiotas, inflammation, and countless other inter-related components and processes that would easily explain why metabolism differs so much from one person to another, as distinct from furnaces that all combust in the same way?
I mean, sure, calories-in/calories-out is ultimately right when you reduce everything down, but why the need to wave away the influence of the above factors on the flow of calories in and calories out?
Your genes may influence how many calories you burn, the foods you eat may influence how full you feel, your hormones may influence where fat develops and disappears -- but thermodynamics require that if you expend more energy than you take in, the difference will have to come from somewhere, and that's ultimately how weight loss works.
My point is it's not at all simple, and it's certainly not as simple as the "calories-in/calories-out" mob claim. If it were so simple, obesity, diabetes and other metabolic disorders wouldn't be the widespread and profound problems that they are.
And my larger point is that the "calories-in/calories-out" call is a euphemistic way of trolling people who suffer these conditions.