Meeting a protein target on a suppressed appetite — one year on

Meeting a protein target on a suppressed appetite — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Asking about Meeting a protein target directly, because I have read four threads on it and each answered a slightly different question.

The version I want answered is the narrow one: given the method stated below, is the result within what anyone else has seen? I am not asking what it means yet.

Method, numbers and the two assumptions I am aware of making are below. If the assumptions are wrong that is more useful to me than agreement.

The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.

Density matters more than quantity when total intake is limited. The same protein in a smaller volume is the whole game.

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 rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.

Post #3 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Maintenance changes the calculation and almost nobody revisits their target when they get there.

Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.

Taking post #3 at face value and following it one step further.

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.

Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.

Micronutrition alongside protein: eating protein foods that are also good sources of micronutrients (iron, B vitamins, zinc) solves two problems at once.

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.

Building on post #7 rather than restating it.

The reports here that describe what actually worked, in specifics, are far more useful than the ones stating a target.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

Narrowing post #8, because the general version has more than one answer.

Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.

Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.

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.

I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.

A target that is not being met is worth adjusting downward to something achievable rather than being missed indefinitely.

Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.