I did two theses on low energy buildings in temperate climates, so I can bore for England on this subject. Many years ago I built a side-by-side experiment with a pair of very similar houses, one of which was a lightweight super-insulated structure (double-stud walls with 300mm mineral wool, 450mm ins in loft, triple glazed, ventilation system with heat recovery), and the other with a similar construction to what I am doing here. The heavyweight house performed better in all respects: less prone to overheating, much more stable internal temperature, 30% more fuel-efficient......and that despite having 33% less insulation in the walls. I also extrapolated the results to very hot and very cold climates, and came to the conclusion that the heavyweight construction would still outperform the lightweight so long as the insulation was thick enough, and of course, provided the ventilation heat/ coolth losses were controlled. I'm sure someone will have built actual examples to test this in harsher climates, but I haven't seen anything.
As for how the masses are actually calculated: well, I haven't got an academic reference, but I do know that the guy who knows more about this than probably anyone in the world has just built himself a cast in-situ concrete house..........8" thick solid walls, ground floor, first floor, ceiling to first floor........all solid concrete.....and then massively externally insulated it. He has provided no heat source whatsoever, other than an external sun-space (conservatory), and stays above 22C all day, all night, all winter, solely from "waste" heat from lighting, cooking, and the big two....the fridge, and the hot water system. Controlling the inputs from the conservatory is automatic and easy. Bear in mind that a human body gives off about a kilowatt, so also makes a big contribution to the tiny heat requirements of a building like that. He told me that there is no way in this country of having too much thermal mass.