More and more people are saying, in the low-carb world, that calories still count. In an abstract way, you can't argue with the logic -- if, over time, your intake of energy is less than what your body burns or excretes, you can't help but lose weight ... and the opposite scenario works, too.
The sooner people are disabused of the idea that they can eat endless quantities of fatty foods (as long as they're low-carb) and still lose weight, the better. It seems typical that SOME of us get carried away with tricky stuff like heavy cream and nut-based baked goodies.... To reach our goals, a LITTLE self-restraint seems inevitable.
But as Pal Jabek once said, although calories count, don't bother to count them. I would change that maxim a bit, myself -- energy-balance counts, but there ain't no way on god's earth you can measure it without a great deal of time, money (a metabolic chamber can't be cheap, nor endless blood-tests), and expertise. Calorie tables, and the amount your treadmill says you're burning, are bullshit -- both being notorious for telling you what you want to hear: the low end of the truth in the first case, and the upper end in the other.
Biology just doesn't seem to work like math and physics, but has the subtlety and "surprise" of chemistry. Perhaps the people who cling to CICO are those who want to force the numbers to do what they want done? A left-brain/right-brain situation? :-) I'll leave it to our psychology-savvy friends to illuminate us, there.
The compromises we make for the sake of success don't seem that tricky. We don't HAVE to eat our coconut-flour pancakes in the form of a chunk of raw coconut beside a couple of plain eggs as some purists would have us do, nor should we have to forgo cream cheese because it's "processed." But chowing down on the equivalent of a cupful of nuts (easy to do when they're ground up), or drinking a whole glass of cream seems like TOO MUCH of a good thing, to me.