Just offering my two cents..
Regarding the amino acid issue, I don't know where they pulled the 8 hour time limit but it seems weird. We know that it can take almost as long for a big meal to digest and even after that there are amino acids flowing around for much longer. Proper fasted state doesn't even start until 10-12hr after your last meal AFAIK. Also 8hr would mean that everyone would be in a catabolic state after nights sleep and would have to run to the protein shaker right after waking up, which everyone agrees is a ridiculous thought. Dunno, I have it hard time to believe the human body would be stupid enough to turn to it's most valued and important tissues (regarding survival) as soon as you go a few hours without food. How would we still be here as a species if every time caveman Ogg couldn't find a mammoth for a few days, his body would start to turn on it's own muscle tissues when there's plenty of fat stored just for that reason? Why not use the fat when it's there for just that very purpose? This would just lead to a downward spiral where each time this happened (often probably), Ogg would have harder time killing prey because his muscles would shrink away. Now I'm not saying there's no catabolism at all but rather is it at a rate we can notice or should be worried about? Don't think so. If we are talking experts, Brad Pilon has said that even fasting up to 72hr shouldn't produce any measurable muscle loss, and he only recommends 24hr once or twice a week so there should not be any issues. As for anectdotal evidence, many proponents of IF seem to be pretty muscular and ripped even after doing it extended time, so I don't think this is a real issue. Personally I have a little more muscle mass than I did when I started fasting for 24hr periods instead of 16hr. Would I have more if I hadn't fasted and dieted the traditional way? I don't know but I don't think so. Also aren't we past that eat every two hours advice? It works for some but there's really no reason to eat that often, other that your own personal preferences.
Also regarding catabolizing of muscle tissue and gluconeogenesis, why is it always assumed that the body will immediately turn to protein as a source. When you burn body fat, glycerol (a sugar and the backbone of molecules which make up your fat tissue) is released and can also be used in gluconeogenesis. So taking into account that you have plenty of fat to burn, there should be sugar floating around during fasting in your bloodstream, which can be used instead of protein if/when needed. Or at least that's what I've read. Someone correct if they have better info, I'd like to know as much as I can.
Regarding nutrition, I personally train at 6am. I would not be getting up at 4am to eat some pre-workout meal anyway so it doesn't really change anything in that respect. I am going to be fasted (or near fasted) anyway and I haven't seen any detrimental effects now that I've gotten accustomed to this. Would I be stronger if I would have some meal before training? Probably. But I'm not gonna get up at the middle of the night to eat. That would be ridiculous. If you are training in the afternoon it's a different story of course.
What I find most fascinating right now about dieting Eat Stop Eat way vs traditional dieting is this:
Of course everyone is selling something and are therefore biased. Proponents of IF are making a buck on books and personal training so of course they try to make IF sound as good as they can. Same for the RD book. The author is selling his own method, which is not IF in the slightest, so there's a reason for him to argue that his method is better. Otherwise why would people use it over something else. Everyone believes they are right and everyone else is wrong. Everything else is a fad and should not be taken seriously. But we know that everything works of course and have to remember that. There's no one magic method. Eating every two hours can work, same as for fasting. Everything works, at least for some time.
Also I'm not sure how anyone can call fasting a fad when it's been around much longer than any other diet method. Sure it has seen a new resurgence in the last 10-15 years with IF but it has always been a part of human existence. Either as an involuntary part of daily lives, when no food was available (our entire existence as a species), or as a voluntary therapeutic method for different purposes in every major religion etc. (for at least few millenia). Our bodies are designed to endure fasting. It is good for us. That's when our bodies repair themselves and get rid of damaged cells. We are designed to live a life of fasting and feasting. Times of scarcity and times of plenty. Mammoth and no mammoth. This way of being constantly fed and (over)nourished is a phenomenon that is only possible in a modern human society where food is everywhere and available all the time. It's not normal if you look it in a historical and evolutionary perspective. There's plenty of evidence in that our bodies do better when they are not in a fed state all the time. I'm not saying that everyone needs to fast but I can't take anyone seriously who says that you should eat 8 meals a day. Do what you prefer says I, be it one meal or ten meals. Personally I prefer 3-4 meals when I'm not fasting. Anymore becomes a hassle and I don't see the benefit. You just eat a bunch of small meals and have to carry food everywhere.
. It's like you said, who has their hand where. 
I just wanted to put my thoughts out here.
I'm sure she meant it as a high compliment.