In terms of something comprehensive, no. I hope I made this clear with qualifiers such as "I imagine", "I don't have any science to back it up", saying it was all anecdotal, etc.

I've been practicing and developing my personal exercise and nutrition for well over 20 years. I've been around long enough to remember low-fat wars (fat is bad - just crank up the sugar!), cardio is best for weight loss (not at all), carbs are good, carbs are bad, high protein is good, now it isn't, now it's back, etc, etc. Like I said I appreciate the evolving science but developing a routine based on the latest "we studied 20 people and..." doesn't make much sense to me. Do I have it nailed? Am I a high performance athlete? No. What I do have going for me at this point is the fact that every indicator puts me in a high percentile for just about any physical and overall health metric. So I guess I have to be doing something right, right?

This is why I started with "studies that go back and forth". After the first two or three reversals from various studies and predominant thinking I realized I should just develop whatever works for me.

My high-protein diet and strength-training focused exercise program works for me. I essentially stumbled upon running while fasted because of my intermittent fasting schedule (which I love) on a few occasions where my life schedule didn't allow for exercise before the end of my fasting window. I more-or-less just started to wonder "Why is running long distances with no caloric intake in > 12 hours so exhilarating?"

I'm also generally aware that humans have been capable of feats such as running > 25 miles at a five minute pace (or less) well before modern equipment, training, and nutrition.

There have to be reasons for all of this, hence my theory.