 Next question is from Pat of Blanc. Why do most calories and macro calculator still use the old school one gram per pound of body weight and even above 1.2 grams while cutting when most recent studies show no benefits for muscle building or fat loss and going above 0.7 grams per pound? Okay, it is true that studies show that you don't derive any extra muscle building benefits from eating more than around 0.7 grams of protein per body weight. However- Is it per body weight or is it per kilogram of muscle? No, no, no, that's per pound of body weight. When they use kilogram, then it's a different, it's a different- See, I feel like that's the metric that uses 0.7 to 0.8 is when they're talking about kilograms. No, that's the old, that's the old crappy one. This is, these are studies that show high protein, you know, build muscle- Because I know Lane shared a study a while back that there's some benefits to the upper limits up to 1.5. Well, here's where the benefits I think most of them come from because there's a lot of studies that have been done on this, okay, and yeah, you can find the outlier studies, but the vast majority of them, the consensus is roughly 0.7 grams of protein per pound of body weight, anything more than that, and you don't derive any more muscle building benefits. Does that mean you're not gonna get any more benefits? Not necessarily because here's something that protein provides. By the way, it has to be appropriate for you. What I mean by that is some people eat too much protein and it messes up their digestion. If that's you, don't go in this direction. Okay, that will make your gains. Bad digestion will mess you up more than anything else. But if you're cool with it, eating more protein has this benefit right here. You might not build more muscle, but boy, is it an appetite suppressant. Out of all the macronutrients, protein is very, very satisfying. So if you're trying to drop body fat, it helps a lot to eat a lot of protein. You're less likely to overeat. I also think it's really tough, you know, for most people unless you weigh a buck 15, it's really tough to hit a one-to-one. And so if you're targeting one or 1.5 or 1.2, you'll probably fall short, but you'll be good. Exactly, some days you're gonna fall short and you're gonna be just fine. Or maybe even days you go way lower, 0.6, but then the next day you hit 1.2 or 1.5 and it all. Because it's so funny, we look at everything in these like small control groups and studies and the day is 24 hours. Like the body doesn't work that way. It doesn't know the difference of day 25 or 29. It's over the course of a longer period of time of that. So and the reality is most people, most people, not bodybuilders, most average clients that I train under consumed protein. So I always like to push them to one-to-one. Even though I know that 0.7 is all they need, I'm pushing them in the direction of one-to-one because I know that they're gonna fall short some days. Yeah, it's not easy. I mean, as of the other day, I weighed about 211, 212 pounds. I don't eat 212 grams of protein a day. That's a lot. I eat probably 160 to 170 grams of protein and that's me chasing protein. I mean, 200, how many chicken breasts would be 200 grams of protein? Not to mention that I think there's a lot of benefit and some days you're actually hitting 250 and then another day you're only hitting 50. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we've talked about this before. I think where you get in trouble is you're hitting these numbers of, you know, two grams, above 1.5 to two and you're one of those competitors who is weighing it, measuring it every day and consuming that or above and you've now, you've married this. The average person that's just kind of trying to figure out like, oh, where should my protein be? Targeting a number like one-to-one. Wasn't there like, I think I remember back when a lot of these bio-hackers were trying to really press the fact that, you know, more than 0.7, like you're gonna get into like kind of like cancerous types of amount through the mTOR pathway and all this kind of stuff that they're proposing in terms of it being carcinogenic at a certain point. Yeah, so when they start to make the cancer arguments, it's silly because in a pro-cancer environment, okay, so you're unhealthy. Yeah, pro-cancer, you give me the case for every macronutrient being unhealthy. Yes, if you're inflamed, you have- This was big for a while. Pre-cancer cells going on, you're not healthy and then you have a tumor that's growing in your body and you eat a lot of protein or a lot of carbs. You're gonna fuel it. You're gonna fuel the growth of it. You're gonna fuel the growth of the cancer, less so fat, but yeah, not even fat. Now, if you're healthy, then you're fine. You're totally fine. You're not gonna be fueling that just, okay, look, how about this, estrogen, testosterone, right? Male and female hormones. In a pro-cancer environment, depending on the cancer, both of those hormones can fuel cancer, right? So if you have high testosterone and you have prostate cancer, one of the ways they prevent the cancer from growing is to block your testosterone. If you have breast cancer, they'll put you on drugs that block the effects of estrogen. Does that mean estrogen and testosterone are cancer producing hormones or they're pro-cancer? No, but in the context of cancer, lots of things then become drivers of cancer. Protein being one of them, but so is carbs, so is pretty much anything else. Which is why they've, I think, didn't they accept fasting as now a protocol, right? Yeah, yeah. Isn't fasting now a protocol for cancer? It is, and there was that one study that was done that showed that people who fasted before doing chemo- In conjunction with chemo, right? Yeah, killed way more cancer cells and protected more of the healthy cells. So fasting's got some interesting implications for, or applications, I should say, for cancer. You know, in Chinese medicine, fasting was one of the ways they treated cancer for thousands of years. If they saw a tumor, they'd have the person starve. I mean, obviously you're starving the tumor as well, so anyway.