Weight / Fat loss

There is obviously a strong case of diminishing returns with protein intake. But 200g for someone over 6ft tall is a very reasonable amount, even if they do not wish to be "swole" but merely athletic.

The classic formula is 1g per lb of of desired bodyweight. I believe this is based on some 1970's soviet science but I'll be damned if I can find the source.
Many people like to go over, but I reckon to benefit from the ridiculously large amounts some people intake (like professional strongmen who intake more like 600g) you need to be on a pile of PED's and have a superhuman digestive system.

I have also seen the modern info suggesting 1.8g per kg of bodyweight. I saw it here;
http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/basics/protein_-_how_much

But again, its missing the scientific data to back it up.
By the old 1g per lb of bodyweight, my 200g recommendation would be for a 90kg bodyweight. Now, to me 90kg at 6'2" sounds skinny. To be 'swole' inchpincher should be looking at 110kg.

With the modern rule;
1.8 x 110 = 198g

Old Rule;
1 x 242.5 = 243g

So I think my recommendation of 200g is most appropriate. Dont forget that someone of mediocre genetics will not lean out and get as muscular as the elite athletes (genetic freaks) that the science was probably based on. So more protein can only be good, but you need to strike the balance between economy and diminishing returns.
,

Benedikt magnusson has been known to sip coke in between his world record deadlifts.

Bear in mind that for endurance type athletes, regular coke is probably a bad idea due to its effect of leaching minerals out of your bones and causing osteoporosis.

You say there's no science to back up the performance diet (then why is it used in formal qualifications?) yet you then say the science is based on elite athletes.
Which is it then?

Please, do yourself a favour and learn about this stuff properly instead of forming your own disjointed opinions and passing them off as some kind of superior knowledge.