The opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Maintenance changes the calculation and almost nobody revisits their target when they get there.
26 likes 14mo
Topic summary
Meeting a protein target on a suppressed appetite
This is a generated summary. It shows the 6 most-liked posts from a topic of 45, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
Hadjipateras, post #4: The opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. Maintenance changes the calculation and almost nobody revisits their target when they get there. Go to post
The practical problem is that appetite suppression makes hitting a target genuinely hard, and "eat more protein" ignores the actual constraint.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
24 likes 11mo
j.nwosu, post #1: Meeting a protein target on a suppressed appetite Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin meeting a protein target down and I want to set out where I have got to, because I suspect the honest answer is duller than the thread this will produce. What I have:… Go to post
Worth separating two things that post #25 runs together.
Density matters more than quantity when total intake is limited. The same protein in a smaller volume is the whole game.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
a.nascimento, post #19: 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. Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so. Go to post
Maintenance changes the calculation and almost nobody revisits their target when they get there.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Post #39 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
27 likes 8mo
Read the full topic (45 posts)
Moved from Hydration & electrolytes by j.mwangi. Category placement is not obvious from outside and getting it wrong is expected. This topic will get better answers here. The move is recorded in the public log citing R7.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Micronutrient adequacy at low total intake
Micronutrient adequacy at low total intake — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on micronutrient adequacy, before collecting…
|
+93 | 99 | 5.8k | 1mo |
|
[2026 update] Whether protein timing matters at a large deficit
Whether protein timing matters at a large deficit — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about Whether protein timing that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+4 | 8 | 46k | 7mo |
|
About the Protein & intake category
Meeting protein targets on a suppressed appetite, fibre, and eating enough of anything at all. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
+4 | 8 | 9.7k | 22mo |
|
Shakes versus food: a pragmatic assessment — the long version
On the subject in the title: Shakes versus food: a pragmatic assessment — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Shakes versus food, deliberately narrow, because the…
|
+36 | 41 | 28k | 14mo |
|
Follow-up: Tracking intake honestly when appetite is absent
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…
|
+94 | 106 | 1.8k | 13mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags constipation, micronutrients, lean mass loss
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Protein density versus volume when you cannot eat much
On the subject in the title: Protein density versus volume when you cannot eat much Working notes rather than a conclusion. Something about protein density versus volume does not reconcile and I would like a…
|
+89 | 105 | 20k | 18mo |
|
Ultrasound and skinfolds: operator dependence in practice
Ultrasound and skinfolds: operator dependence in practice — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trying to establish the boundary conditions on ultrasound and skinfolds. The…
|
+72 | 76 | 2.7k | 2d |
|
Second pass at: Programming during a large energy deficit
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: Programming during a large energy deficit Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+44 | 48 | 632 | 30d |
|
About the Resistance training category
Programming while losing weight quickly, realistic expectations, and recovery. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a…
|
4 | 40k | 17d | |
|
Why side effects reset at each escalation and that is not a failure
Why side effects reset at each escalation and that is not a failure — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. The question about side effects that I actually…
|
+3 | 7 | 11k | 14h |