Yes, calories expended vs calories consumed is the key. What we’re increasingly learning about, however, is how the line of demarcation can change for many people.
It’s really, really a sad commentary that even on FR perfectly legitimate articles about significant biological revelations still provoke the high horse herd.
There’s no doubt that the base-line “calories expended” can go from almost unlimited for people with “good” genes to below starvation levels for people with “bad” genes. And the more we know about those genes, the better.
I just would hate to see that be the beginning and end of the discussion, because it is possible for the body to adapt to a better baseline when given the right inputs and outputs. I can’t imagine anything more unhealthy for the population as a whole than for a doctor to tell some people that they have “bad” genes and therefore there’s no point in working to improve one’s genetic starting point. It draws a comparison to the liberal argument that if someone is born poor, they have “lost life’s lottery” and so they should just wait for the government to give them stuff because there’s no point in working hard to overcome a poor starting point.