In other words, when we say "nutritional value", what we mean is carbohydrates.
This is something that everyone understands when we're talking about bears, but somehow forgets when we're talking about people. Those "empty" carbs are 99% of the reason you eat anything. "Nutritional value" and "energy content" are the same thing.
If you’re not trolling, I think you need to learn more about the difference between carbs, other nutrients, and indigestible material. “Carbs” does not mean “anything you can digest” (which seems to be how you’re using it).
For all animals, of course ensuring that you have enough energy to function is a primary concern, but health studies in modern contexts always assumes that the supply of carbs is a solved problem (modern foods generally have far more carbs than most people need), but at the expense of reducing other nutrients.
No, that's stronger than I'd say and I suspect than you think? For example, I think almost anyone would say the nutritional value of 100 calories of whole wheat flour is greater than 100 calories of enriched white flour, is greater than 100 calories of plain white flour.
Sure, but the differences there are very small compared to the nutritional value of the 100 calories of white flour.
Note also that 100 calories of whole wheat flour is more flour than 100 calories of white flour, which will matter to people who need to eat, but gets glossed over as you do the calorie-for-calorie comparison.
