It's not phenomenal, but is I think respectable. And the point is that it's more than is achieved by most people quoting studies - or achieved by anyone they've coached.
It is respectable, but it doesnt require the level of fine tuning getting below 10% does.
I'm not contradicting these methods. I'm saying the physiology is irrelevant. The physiological differences are dwarfed by the behavioural ones. This is why Hulk is doing well on two meals a day, while poor Dave is doing badly on three, and Annie is doing great on six. Individuals aside, there are some general trends in behaviour.
Whether multiple small meals speeds the metabolism doesn't matter, what we find is that people eating multiple small meals generally find it easier to adjust the total quantities up or down as necessary than people eating a few big meals.
This is the point, it doesnt. Issue is there are people on here who needlessly complex a process that is very simple (ensuring macros and overall calories) with voodoo like 6+ meals a day, avoiding entire food groups and organic food. For those who need this in order to lift their game thats fine (some people are very comfortable eating 6+ meals a day) but for many its totally impractical and theres no 'this doesnt matter' tag attached to the 'eat organic' argument.
Whether carbs are processed late at night differently to during the day is irrelevant, what we find is that people who have a big breakfast tend to eat less overall than people who miss breakfast and stuff themselves at dinnertime.
Whether 1,000kcal of carbs is processed differently to 1,000kcal of protein is irrelevant; what matters is that we have essential proteins, and we have essential fats but there are no essential carbs, so if you have to cut somewhere, it makes sense to cut carbs. As well, people who eat protein or fat heavy meals tend to feel fuller for longer compared to those who eat carb heavy meals. I can eat 500g of mashed potatoes easily, it's a lot harder to eat 500g steak or lard.
Thus we get the common recommendations to have a big breakfast, and/or have several small meals rather than a few big ones, and to have more protein and fats and less carbs.
The carb logic is pretty much right (but this differs enormously from forum advice of 'never eat bread') but the multiple meal thing isn't - eating very small, low carb meals on a low calorie diet is an awesome way to remain unsatiated.
So while the physiological differences may make a difference for some ideal person who eats a precise number of calories a day, this ideal person does not exist, and the behavioural variations completely overshadow the physiological ones.
We have this illusion that if we could only control all the variables down to the last gram or calorie then everything would work perfectly. But it just doesn't happen. Picking apart someone's macronutrient ratios is like the people who criticise a powerlifting competitor's squat form on YouTube, it's missing the important stuff for the not so important details.
Again this is my point. This is why I have issues with people drawing up diets based on what they eat (on here usually 6 meals a day, no starches, organic food etc) and forcing it down the throats of all other members despite totally different lifestyles, previously established healthy eating habits, cultural differences and taste palette, especially where it plain doesnt matter assuming macros/calories are correct.
Dispelling those myths was the entire point of the OPs post and he used studies and logic to back them up, much to the disappointment of many here.