Counting macros is extremely effective. The general population doesn't have the discipline for it, but amoung sport coaches, actors, models, bodybuilders, this is *the* technique for achieving goals.

Anyway what's cute about this is that this isn't novel phenomenon. There are lots of parallels to this in other fields where often effective solutions do exist, but at a system level don't seem to work.

Telling people to diet doesn't fix population level obesity. Telling people about personal financial management doesn't stop people from accruing too much high interest debt. Telling teenagers to stop idolizing instagram influences doesn't fix body anxiety issues. Telling people to stop smoking/drinking doesn't fix addictions. 3-2-1 data backups absolutely work but people lose files all the time.

>In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved?

If your maintenance calories are 2700kcal and you eat 300kcal less than that, is eating 2400kcal starving for you?

Most people cannot tell a difference if they eat 100-150kcal less in a day.

>Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy?

Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor.

Deficit = maintenance calories (TDEE) - calorie intake

In this, even if your calorie tracking is on point, a deficit requires you to have a decent estimate of maintenance calories.

To throw a monkey wrench into all this, your maintenance calories often shift downward as you progress in your "diet" journey.

The problem is: average person is bad at counting calories. They overestimate number of calories burnt, and severely underestimate number of calories consumed. Once you get your math right and get into real, not imaginary calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. Rule of thumb: whatever you think the amount of calories is in your current meal, double your estimate.