I think that the people, on both sides, who are getting results are usually more open minded than the people who are still spinning their wheels.
For me, intermittent fasting is a bad idea. I gave it a solid go for 3 weeks and it messed up my metabolism pretty bad and I ended up on an epic binge for a week. This isn't anyone's fault, and it was worth a run as I don't like eating during the day much. However, I have a metabolic disorder and I need to keep my fat intake high throughout the day, otherwise my liver gets irritated and begins producing massive amounts of glucose in retaliation.
My opinion for the general public is: do whatever works. I haven't run a study, don't approve of most studies anyway as they seem poorly run, and really think the skinny kids on lean gains should shut up, squat, and eat a pizza.
As is my usual fashion, I have to rage for a few paragraphs before I calm down and become reasonable. Discussing pencil vs pen? Rage. Tap vs. bottled? Rage. Carbs vs. not? Rage. Personality flaw or not, I'm very excitable.
I honestly don't like either system for me. 4 meals a day, each heavy on protein and fat works the best for my metabolism and gains or losses.
My worry with the general population is that IF is being used by skinny teenagers to justify the way they want to eat, not to make solid gains. Frequent feeding may lead to constantly elevated glucose levels, leading to insulin resistance.