Think about this. Theoretically, is it possible to have lots of money in your bank account but die broke because you had no access to it? Is it possible to die of thirst surrounded by an ocean of water? Is it possible to suffocate on a planet surrounded by breathable air? Could it be possible to die of starvation in a grocery store full of food?
The idea that fat loss is ONLY about calories is not correct. Insulin levels must be lowered. If your body has no access to fat stores, then you can starve AND be fat. You must allow your insulin levels to lower.
Insulin has an antilipolytic effect. It prevents fat from being accessed as fuel and forces the body to use carbohydrates and proteins. If someone's body tends to release too much insulin when stimulated by food, then they will have more difficulty burning fat than another person whose body releases less insulin from the same meal.
It stands to reason that the insulin response to food is adapted over time. Just like a bodybuilder increases the size and strength of a muscle through training, it seems reasonable that the insulin response to food may be adapted over time to excessive work. In order to reduce that insulin response it may take time and plenty of skipped meals.
The big question is "Will the insulin response attenuate over time with occasional large meals or are frequent small meals necessary?" From my own personal experience I found that weight loss is frustrating and unpleasant with frequent small meals. Also, there are many examples of people who eat infrequent large meals and do not suffer from obesity. Check out JiGsAwMoFo's videos on Youtube.
Reversing obesity is about burning fat and that requires access to the stored fat. Insulin prevents that access through its antilipolytic effect (regardless of calories consumed). Reducing insulin levels is REQUIRED to burn body fat.