Taking post #28 at face value and following it one step further.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
0 likes 24d
Nutrition & Training · Protein & intake · continued
Revisiting: Protein density versus volume when you cannot eat much posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
taper_shift, post #18: Everything in post #15 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. 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… Go to post
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.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
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.
14 likes 23d
so.mbeki, post #15: Building on post #14 rather than restating it. Self-reported intake is optimistic by a consistent margin in the published comparisons, which is worth applying to your own numbers. Go to post
The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Makinen, post #24: Where the Protein density versus volume discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on. Go to post
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.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
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.
9 likes 22d
w.moreau, post #5: Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting. 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. This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not. Go to post
Small methodological point on Protein density versus volume: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound.
0 likes 21d
I had written a reply contradicting post #39 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
0 likes 21d
f.espinoza, post #1: Revisiting: Protein density versus volume when you cannot eat much 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 Protein density versus volume 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… Go to post
A note on how Protein density versus volume gets discussed rather than on Protein density versus volume itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
dietitian_hollis, post #35: The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat. Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people. Go to post
Micronutrition alongside protein: eating protein foods that are also good sources of micronutrients (iron, B vitamins, zinc) solves two problems at once.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
23 likes 19d
What tends to work is front-loading the day, prioritising density over volume, and treating it as a solvable problem rather than an inconvenience.
6 likes 19d
e.ferreira, post #33: 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. Go to post
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.
IMainwaring, post #2: 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. Go to post
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.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
k.asante, post #42: Confirming post #39 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound. Go to post
Where I part company with post #48, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
so.mbeki, post #3: The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one. On Protein density versus volume: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one. Go to post
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
18 likes 17d
p.fontaine, post #40: Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound. Go to post
Post #52 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Liquid sources are tolerated better than solid ones by many people here, and that is a practical observation rather than a nutritional principle.
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.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
11 likes 16d
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.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
24 likes 15d
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.
For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.
18 likes 15d