this is actually legitimately more accurate than most of the contrary arguments, which are based in debunked pseudoscience and hippie bullshit. the reality is that your body doesn't really care what you're giving it, it just cares if it can digest it. it also cares how much of it you're giving it.

real simple formula:
energy in - energy out = energy stored

nothing more to it than that.

now, there's probably enough fuel and nutrients in that meal to last you the whole day. you don't want to eat that twice a day. ever. but if you were to eat it once a day (and nothing else) every single day and not be a total fucking couch potato, you'd probably come back absolutely healthy after a year. conversely, if you were to eat a kg of tomatoes daily while glued to your couch, you'd come back with diabetes.

the key is not what you eat. it's how much you eat.

you really shouldn't be measuring your calories with a calculator, a schedule and a government guideline. healthy people get this little feeling in their stomach that tells them it's time to eat. i'd guess most americans aren't familiar with this, but it's a great tool to use in measuring your calorie intake.

the problem isn't this. the problem is that people eat this as a lunchtime snack, then go home and eat twice as much for supper. it's the sheer bulk of food being consumed. if they were to skip the second or third (or fourth...) meal, they'd be fine with this as a basic fuel source. and, what's at the core of that is this persistent agriculture industry propaganda that we need to be eating three times a day. you evolved to be lucky to eat a significant meal once a week, while you're running around in circles (screaming, with hands in air) avoiding angry lions.

you're fat because the biggest government-subsidized industry out there told you that you need to eat three times a day in order to drive to work in an office, not because you eat high efficiency food from time to time.