ignoring the stupidity of your question i'd just like to point out that without the knowledge of your caloric maintenance requirements (and not from a bullshit online calculator), we can't make any assumptions on what amount of calories would be required to lose weight
Insults and anger aside, it seems we agree that the source of the calories does in fact make a difference.
A moment of reflection reveals that "food" is a very vague and somewhat arbitrary classification of materials. And what may be "food" for some may not be for others.
I've never understood why it should be at all controversial to consider that different individuals could have substantial variance in their ability to absorb calories from different sources. As often as not, the response to the idea is anger, which is kinda weird, frankly.
> it seems we agree that the source of the calories does in fact make a difference.
we don't. if your body is capable of getting 3500cals from sand and your maintenance intake is 3500 cals then you will stay the same weight.
> I've never understood why it should be at all controversial to consider that different individuals could have substantial variance in their ability to absorb calories from different sources.
It's irrelevant. If you absorb 3 calories from carbohydrates and I absorb the standard 4 calories, the absolute value of the calories I get from food might be slightly off, but it's reproducible and doesn't change any of the core concepts related to losing/gaining weight.
If you mean that you absorb calories different from apples than from oranges, then I've never seen any data even remotely supporting that conclusion.
ignoring the stupidity of your question i'd just like to point out that without the knowledge of your caloric maintenance requirements (and not from a bullshit online calculator), we can't make any assumptions on what amount of calories would be required to lose weight