Protein density versus volume when you cannot eat much posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #59 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Micronutrition alongside protein: eating protein foods that are also good sources of micronutrients (iron, B vitamins, zinc) solves two problems at once.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
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.
The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.
On post #62 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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 version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The practical problem is that appetite suppression makes hitting a target genuinely hard, and "eat more protein" ignores the actual constraint.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
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.
Post #70 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Adding the measurement that post #70 says would settle it.
What I want from this protein density versus volume thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
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.
What tends to work is front-loading the day, prioritising density over volume, and treating it as a solvable problem rather than an inconvenience.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
The arithmetic in post #73 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Adding a small correction to the protein density versus volume summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
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.
Density matters more than quantity when total intake is limited. The same protein in a smaller volume is the whole game.
Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein.
Coming back to post #80, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
This follows post #82 rather than contradicting it.
The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Post #82 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Micronutrition alongside protein: eating protein foods that are also good sources of micronutrients (iron, B vitamins, zinc) solves two problems at once.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
I read post #84 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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 the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
An observation about protein density versus volume that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
Narrowing post #86, because the general version has more than one answer.
Worth stating the null on protein density versus volume before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
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.