25s are a little more aerodynamic than 23s and have virtually no rolling resistance difference. That is why pros are moving towards them.
If you want to extract the last 0.1% from your effort, use 25s. Otherwise ride whatever feels comfortable
The above is not strictly true. 25's tend to offer reduced rolling resistance and MAY offer improved aerodynamics IF they are mounted to a suitable rim so as to minimise bulbing and optimise the tyre-rim transition and enhance the overall rim profile. However, this is talking only about the tyre/wheel in isolation, put it in a bike with a rider on it and you might find the combo that was best in isolation is actually worse as part of the whole system.
Additionally, you might end up with a situation where a 25 offers lower rolling resistance, but is an aerodynamic compromise or vice versa.
I have field tested the following:
19mm Continental podium TT tubular on a FFWD Trispoke vs a 22mm Continental podium TT tubular on a FFWD Trispoke
The rear wheel was held constant, FFWD Disc with a 22mm Continental Podium TT tubular.
The aerodynamic advantage from the thinner tyre in my testing was MUCH larger than the rolling resistance increase, that is to say, even though the rolling resistance of the overall system increased a little, the CdA of the entire system decreased by an amount that far outweighed the increase in rolling resistance. I believe this to be for 2 reasons, in simplest terms, a lower frontal area, A, and a visibly better transition between the tyre and the rim, lower, Cd. If anyone is particularly interested I can provide ratios (I can not disclose absolute values).
If you are going to mock, at least do it from a position of having a clue!