I think my life is a lot more representative, if you account for where I eat only. Most of my meals are at home, with about one meal away from home. Pretty sure thats most people in the western world, no?
Obviously Im not referring to the weighing of food, here.
The amount of travel that I've done in the past year and a half us definitely not normal, and unhealthy. It's not something that I want to repeat long term, I've found this very difficult, I've gained weight, I've had to deal with constantly shifting circadian rhythms, and it's been harder to see friends. And I've only done this for a year and I'm in my 30s so I'm almost young. I see people do this in their 50s and 60s and I worry that they'll just drop.
I can't say that it's that uncommon. It's not just academics who do this, it's also people in the corporate sector. Otherwise business class would be called professor class.
What's unusual about you is that you have the beneficiary knowledge from being a chef, and you've achieved a lot of results by showing a decade or so of dedication to strength training. I think that fewer than 1% of people have shown that much dedication to athletics, and even less have that much knowledge of food.
Anyway the cognitive tax of calorie burden was only half my point. The other half was that it's pseudodcience. If a random person, as in not an elite athlete, actually cuts 100 calories a day from their consumption, say by reducing all of their portions by 4%, they won't lose 12 lbs of fat over the next year. They might lose 1 or 2 lbs of fat, and they'll simply have a slower metabolism, by approximately 100 calories a day.
The 160 calories in a can of coca cola are not merely bad due to they're being 160 calories in there. Their metabolic effect is far worse -- they will prevent your body from converting adipose fat into energy, via a combination of processes operating on both the short term and the long term. Fructose also fails to trigger satiety, unlike e.g. tree nuts.