Revisiting: Protein density versus volume when you cannot eat much posts 61–90

Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.

Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein.

Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.

Adding a null result on Protein density versus volume. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.

Worth separating two things that post #74 runs together.

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.

This is the version I would want a new member to read first.

Post #76 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

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

I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.

Two things can be true about Protein density versus volume at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

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.

The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.

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.

Adding the measurement that post #84 says would settle it.

Adequate protein during a substantial deficit is the part of this conversation that gets least attention and probably deserves most.

The confident answers on Protein density versus volume and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

Adding the boring version of Protein density versus volume, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.

Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.

Answering the question post #87 raises rather than the one it answers.

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

I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.

The arithmetic in post #87 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

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.

I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.