This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Protein sources: animal sources (meat, fish, eggs, dairy) are denser and easier to hit targets with. Plant sources require higher volume. Neither is nutritionally superior; volume and personal preference matter.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
I had written a reply contradicting post #29 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
What I would want before treating Meeting a protein target as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Confirming post #33 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Maintenance changes the calculation and almost nobody revisits their target when they get there.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Coming back to post #33, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Adequate protein during a substantial deficit is the part of this conversation that gets least attention and probably deserves most.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Everything in post #37 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Distribution across the day appears to matter less than total for most outcomes, and it matters practically because a single large meal is harder when appetite is reduced.
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.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
Post #40 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Protein supplements: whey, casein, and plant-based protein powders can help hit targets when whole-food intake is limited by appetite. Protein quality (all essential amino acids) matters more than form.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Post #44 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Liquid versus solid: protein in liquid form (shakes) is easier to consume in volume but might not be as satiating as solid food. Using both together can help.
Timing of protein: spreading protein intake across the day, with some at each meal, is more practical than trying to hit the whole target at one sitting on suppressed appetite.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
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.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Confirming post #46 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Nothing here is medical or dietetic advice, and a dietitian is the professional this subcategory most often recommends.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
I had written a reply contradicting post #48 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Reframing Meeting a protein target slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
Post #51 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
Building on post #51 rather than restating it.
The question underneath Meeting a protein target is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
Post #55 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Where I have landed on Meeting a protein target, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
I read post #55 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Fibre: adequate fibre intake supports fullness and gut motility, both of which matter during the gastrointestinal effects of these compounds. High fibre on top of appetite suppression requires attention to hydration and gradual introduction.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Post #59 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.