Who knows what this "lawman" nonsense is all about. The average joe (like 99% of the people on this site), and even more highly trained athletes are not going to see more than subtle differences, if any. I'm saying it, metabolic rate be damned unless you're increasing it with thermogenics. Eat more than you burn, you'll gain. Eat less, you'll lose. The rest is broscience and, at best, hypothesis.

The "rest" can be scientific, peer-reviewed, published research. Hardly "broscience", and way past "hypothesis" stage. But of course it's subtle. How much less subtle do you think thermogenics are? 99% of the average joes around here honestly believe most of this stuff can apply to them, as opposed to just people with extremely low bf, who want even lower bf, for stage or magazines. It's a dream factory for the delusional. My only objection is to articles like this that sell trendy physiological lies, not just irrelevant information to average joes.

I agree with you there, but in the context of this article is giving information based on metabolic spikes that mean nothing in the context to your diet for the whole day. Eating before working out or not, one isn't a fool for doing it one way. It's broscience to sell the idea that you'll lose muscle because you're training fasted. You're not going catabolic (and in turn lose muscle mass) in the 40-60 minutes you're working out and the 30-40 (potentially) before you have an opportunity to eat. To my point, it doesn't matter as he's trying to sell that it does. A short portion of your day and intake within that period is not going to effect anything overall in your diet, gain, loss or training because: If you eat less calories than you burn in a day (a caloric deficit), you will lose weight. If you meet your protein macro, you will preserve muscle mass. If you eat more calories than you burn in a day (a caloric surplus), you will gain weight. How you workout (with regard to what's in your belly) if going to have little effect on your end results.