Its really simple Exploited.
Stop using ratios, organisms, inputs-outputs, starvation, and miniscule impacts or anything of the sort. It bastardizes the entire industry. Its why the word "diet" needs to die. You have to run a caloric deficit or surplus to gain or lose weight. Real simple. It literally is a numbers game (plus or minus genetics, sex and other factors). For 95% of people, its a numbers game.
1 lb of fat = 3500 calories
If you burn 2000 calories a day and eat 3000, you add 1000 calories to your body that is stored as fat or other means. Over 3.5 days you will add 1 lb. If you only ate 2000 and burned 2000, you stay the same. If you burned 2000, and ate 1500 (which isn't starving FYI) then you will lose 1 lb a week assuming (7 days a week X 500 calories) if you did this correctly.
I take back my words of you being "wrong" its just that your terms are awful and confusing, so stop using them. And your idea of doing more exercise instead of "starving" is incorrect as well, people have to exercise in general for overall health, but you could technically just count your calories, continue on with your day job and eat the exact or below your caloric needs, and you'll lose/keep weight. Its why people who give up drinking cokes can lose 10-15 lbs quick without ever having to lift a finger.
Theoretically, someone could eat nothing but ice cream for days to their caloric needs and exercise, and still lose weight. They won't be able to do it forever, but its literally a numbers game. If your body needs 500 calories of energy, it will get it from somewhere.
We could actually solve obesity alone without ever having to put someone in a gym. The gym is for overall health (it does aid with solving obesity, metabolism etc not discrediting that at all FYI), we just equate the two because our waist sizes have become so large (and lifestyles have changed) its the only way to get faster results. Its why I'm actually ok with having calories listed on all items of food.