Oh for sure the problem CAN be worked from either or, ideally, both sides (reduced calorie intake, increased calorie burn).
I'm just saying that the effort required and mental resistance is WAY skewed against the calorie burn side. To the point where, Richard Simmons' best efforts be damned, I think it's a losing case to try to make to the average American.
But too few people understand how EASY the reduced calorie intake side can be (it has its own mental resistance -- "not my beloved carbs!" -- and misconceptions -- "I can't live on salads").
I'm just viewing it as a pragmatist. If the goal is fat burn, I just focus on what they're eating.