Explain how? As I mentioned to you previously, an individual is for the most part (Which I think is generous) is incapable of understanding themselves fully and completely. There are a tremendous amount of issues with this attitude, ranging from objectivity to methodology. It's been proven time and time again, under controlled environments, where researches are meticulous in their approach and methodology, results are outrageously different from those results in uncontrolled environments. This is proven, far beyond just nutrition. DY is accomplished as a mother ****er. Kudos to him for that he has accomplished. If he is satisfied with his results and his training/nutrition, then fine. However, it's proof of nothing. Any reasonable and logical person will understand that. What are we studying, exactly? How might the ages and gender be relevant in the results? What about body fat %? Body composition? I think maybe, you might be misunderstanding me. And perhaps it's because I haven't made my position clear (although considering the time we spent in my thread and UFC's, I would think it's pretty clear). Let me try and fix that. There are different sets of rules regarding nutrition and weight lifting that are applicable based on gender, age, body fat %, lean body mass %, and a whole host of things. For example. Proper protein intake for an obese individual trying to lose fat will be different than proper protein intake for someone 10% body fat, trying to get into contest shape. The obese person simply has so much fat, his protein intake is almost irrelevant. His body will simply shed fat and never once think about touching muscle. The opposite is true for the contest dieter at 10% body fat. Hormonal and physiologically, they're on different planes. The contest dieter would serve himself well to eat 1.2-1.5g of protein per lbs of body weight. Unlike the obese dieter, the contest dieter's body simply doesn't want to part with anymore fat. In case of famine, it will need that fat to survive. It would rather part with muscle, which isn't as necessary for a survival (in context) situation. So the contest dieter must protect the muscle differently. A beginning weight lifter, 100% should have a different routine than an intermediate lifter/pro BB. There's a clear line of progression of what's optimal given the circumstances. But the context of how to build muscle efficiently is pretty much the same. So yes, athletes have different sets of rules than say, the obese. Hell, even the obese could have different sets of rules than each other based on health markers (insulin tolerance being a big one big one). I'm not disputing these things. Never have. However, when we talk about the fundamentals, they're the same and apply to everyone. Most of what we're debating at this point (body building nutrition) has little application to anyone here. If it did, they would already know this information. Not true at all. Again, this is what makes peer reviewed studies relevant. In a peer reviewed research study (the only legitimate kind, as anyone who knows anything about research understands) there are plenty of qualifiers, conditions, etc... when selecting candidates. I'm not sure where you get this idea that 100 Joes are picked up off the street and thrown into a study. The studies I read are only from legitimate sources. The nutritionists I read, only use legitimate studies to discuss nutrition. There's an old broscience expression in lifting. "Eat big to get big." It's an interesting statement. It's right and wrong. Without clearly defined contexts, I'm sure broscientists could twist it a million ways and thus end up with "if it works for you, it's the best." When in reality, that what an individual did and what could of been accomplished if variables were changed, are different things. As I said, this topic is really similar to evolution vs. creationism. One side holding all the evidence and presenting it when asked. And yet, it's never good enough, despite the fact it is.