As a writer (not of great writing talent, but have worked at it professionally anyway) myself I have to work quite hard to be sure that I'm saying what I mean to communicate without creating possible readings that will have some concluding things I didn't mean to say.
Not that it's a particularly great example, but one I remember seeing myself raked over the coals on again and again just from Google searches turning these things up, once I wrote that 'trenbolone acetate does not have special fat burning properties."
Now what I meant was this: Other authors were claiming that the acetate ester itself, not the steroid but the ester, had, quote, special fat burning properties. This is not so. I think most would agree on this today: trenbolone enanthate is comparably popular to trenbolone acetate as a cutting steroid.
But, I should have predicted, many read this as being me saying that trenbolone isn't much of a choice for a cutting cycle. Not what I meant. I failed to predict other possible readings, just having in mind my own thought. I still do this all the time but manage to catch it most of the time I hope. My wife also helps with proofreading now. She finds things I didn't mean all the time.
The above things that are objected to would indeed be completely wrong if applied to all circumstances and indeed to very many circumstances. Many absolutely can be put on a great program and make great gains without any particular supplementation. Any reading that it's impossible for that to happen I doubt, just as opinion, could be what the authors meant because they appear knowledgeable.
It depends on who you work with. Most guys at a more advanced level, who already say 3 years ago were doing quite well and have been training consistently and well since, are not gaining for example 3 lb of muscle a month, or adding 5% strength every month. If they did they'd have added 100 lb of muscle since then, and would have increased their strength by more than 5 times (5% raised to the 36th power, over 36 months.) Nope. We know that more advanced guys are often up only say 3 lb in a year, and if their lifts went up 5% in the year that may be a good year. Track some powerlifters' careers and that will be seen to be true.
In such instances it can be absolutely true that improving workout nutrition can be the only natural way found to make a fast major improvement.
I would disagree completely that John Meadows could not have made the improvement he says he did, or could not reasonably have been at a quite slow rate of gain prior to that, thus making the relative improvement possible.
I would agree completely with a disagreement of a reading that no lifter can make fast gains without it.