Strawman argument, I've never stated that.
Calories are the global permissive, but food quality also counts. It doesn't invalidate CICO that different nutrients have different hormonal effects in the body.
But thanks to well contorlled studies we know that where protien intakes are equal, manipulating the % of carbs or fat in your diet has zero impact on results:
"In August of 2015, NIH researcher Kevin Hall published a rigorous
study on carb intakes and weight loss. Its design was the gold standard of fat loss trials: the participants were kept in a metabolic ward; their diets were controlled exactly.
In their typical simplistic fashion, media outlets reported the study results as “Low-carb doesn’t work!” or even “Low-carb worse than low fat!” Actually
analyzing the study, however, draws a much less dramatic picture.
What the study really did is take a first step in testing the so-called “Carbohydrate-Insulin Theory of Obesity”, which points to carbs and insulin being the major factor behind weight gain. It tested a lower-carb diet (140 g/day isn’t low-carb but
is lower-carb compared to the typical diet) against a super-low-fat diet (17 g/day) and
found similar rates of fat loss.
There was no magic fat loss advantage in lowering carbs, even though insulin was indeed reduced. Low-carb advocates cried foul: the study wasn’t even close to being low-carb (usually less than 50 g/day). So the researchers, funded by a pro-low-carb organization, did a
follow-up study at ketogenic levels.
There again, however, they could attribute no fat loss advantage to the low-carb diet. Low-carb advocates were incensed, and Kevin Hall
replied back to criticism repeatedly."
Full article with links to the studies:
https://examine.com/nutrition/3-examples-of-fakenews-from-the-world-of-nutrition-research/