I'm philosophically opposed to the phrase "calories in, calories out". True, we can't violate thermodynamics. However, the real important thing is calories abs

I'm philosophically opposed to the phrase "calories in, calories out". True, we can't violate thermodynamics. However, the real important thing is calories absorbed, and how those calories affect metabolism, calories out. Not as poetic, but you said it yourself - 300 calories of oreos are not equal to the same calories of chicken. And wood sure has a lot of calories (right?) but chew it up and eat it and you're not gonna get many of them absorbed. And some food triggers more of an insulin response which affects what your body does with the calories. It conveys the wrong point to the person who doesn't learn more to say "calories in, calories out" even though at some level of course it's thermodynamically sound.