This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
Nothing here is medical or dietetic advice, and a dietitian is the professional this subcategory most often recommends.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Where I part company with post #34, and it is a narrow parting.
What tends to work is front-loading the day, prioritising density over volume, and treating it as a solvable problem rather than an inconvenience.
Post #34 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
I would be cautious about generalising from the protein density versus volume example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
I had written a reply contradicting post #37 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Reframing protein density versus volume 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.
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.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
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.
Protein density versus volume is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
Coming back to post #40, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Adding the measurement that post #42 says would settle 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.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
Liquid sources are tolerated better than solid ones by many people here, and that is a practical observation rather than a nutritional principle.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
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.
If someone has run protein density versus volume properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
Post #48 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
Leucine and MPS: leucine stimulates muscle protein synthesis at a threshold of roughly 2 to 3 grams per meal. That influences how much protein per meal matters, but total daily protein still matters most.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
I read post #51 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
My understanding of protein density versus volume is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
Post #51 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Eating anything at all: on substantial appetite suppression, eating enough total calories to maintain lean mass is the priority. Protein comes second to total intake.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
This follows post #55 rather than contradicting 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.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
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.
Where I part company with post #55, and it is a narrow parting.
Temperature and texture change what is tolerable for a lot of people during the first weeks, and that is worth experimenting with before concluding nothing works.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
I have three months of notes on protein density versus volume and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.