I read post #5 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. The version of Tracking intake that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Tracking intake honestly when appetite is absent Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
A follow-up question about Tracking intake that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Adding a small correction to the Tracking intake summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Tracking intake is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
Published guidance on protein during weight loss is reasonably consistent and is easy to find, which makes this one of the better-evidenced practical questions here.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Post #5 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Protein targets during weight loss: the standard recommendation is 1.6 to 2.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. Individual requirements vary but that range is a reasonable starting point.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
Adding the measurement that post #9 says would settle it.
Fibre and fluid tend to fall alongside protein when intake drops, and the constipation reported here follows from that as much as from the mechanism.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
Post #8 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Where intake has fallen a long way, protein is usually the first thing to fall because it is the least appealing macronutrient when appetite is reduced.
The claim about Tracking intake upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Post #12 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Density matters more than quantity when total intake is limited. The same protein in a smaller volume is the whole game.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Practical experience of Tracking intake, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound.
The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
Meeting protein targets on suppressed appetite: this is where the practical difficulty lies. Eating more protein when appetite is suppressed is genuinely hard. Front-loading the day, prioritising density over volume, and accepting this is a problem worth solving all help.
Worth separating two things that post #25 runs together.
Marking my uncertainty on Tracking intake explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
This follows post #25 rather than contradicting it.
Taking Tracking intake seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.