Just registered to comment on the article:
First off, looking over the studies that he mentions, none of them controlled for diet. In fact, one study even mentioned that the participants were encouraged not to restrict their food intake ("Additionally, they were told not to impose any dietary restrictions during study participation but to select food items without restraint." Body fat loss and compensatory mechanisms in response to different doses of aerobic exercise). Someone who does intense exercise 5x a week is going to feel much more justified in taking that extra piece of cake, rather than someone who is only actively watching their dietary intake.
Secondly, none of the studies controlled for the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise -- they only counted aerobic exercise towards their energy expenditure. So, basically if someone who was already on a weightlifting program joined their study, they would discount the energy expenditure from the weightlifting and only count the in-lab aerobic portion. In addition, it's been shown that marathons (a popular aerobic exercise) cause heart inflammation, whereas there have been no studies regarding the effect of strength training on heart health.
I like the website and the lifestyle it promotes, but this article really makes it seem like Mark's conflating correlation with causation without seeing that are a complete host of other factors not taken into account in these studies.
Forgot to also mention, how does this account for our paleo ancestors, who had a very active lifestyle of hunting and gathering, and most certainly burned more than 4000 calories a week in pursuit of food?