It certainly could be based on facts. But you didn’t present any. You presented your theory and a story about cooking.
If you understand the facts and have references, that’d be a great article! But this article is you saying what you think.
Regarding the idea that metabolism varying meaning the whole theory needs to come crumbling down, though… that’s not really how any of this works. Everything you have ever calculated is an estimation. Unless you have been in a sealed medical chamber that measures CO2 expiration and mass changes, you don’t know for certain how efficient your body is at processing calories. We’re not all made in a factory. But even if we were — cars made in the exact same factory don’t all have the same exact MPG rating when measured. Real life is messy and about estimates. Estimates work well for most people in a normal population distribution.
I think what you’re doing is looking at specific numbers that you’ve gathered (all of which are estimates — from TDEE calculators, to calories listed on packaging, to weights per container, to calories used during exercise) and expecting the math to be precise. But when you start using estimate after estimate, the error starts to inflate. You can’t apply population estimates to an individual.
The only way to prove this for sure is as follows: eat the same food every day for 2 weeks. Figure out if you’re gaining or losing weight. Either add more or less food. See weight change. You can do this repeatedly with a variety of different types of food to test your own personal theories — introduce Snickers bars or ice cream or whatever.
At the end of the day, no one is arguing that quality of food doesn’t matter. Eating more vegetables and lean meats in place of cookies and beer is good for a multitude of reasons. But this doesn’t negate the idea that your body is really a sophisticated biological battery
