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 broad version has been asked here four times and produced four long threads and no answer.
One question, stated units, stated method, and what I have already ruled out.
Post #2 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Shakes versus food than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
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 think the Shakes versus food question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
Building on post #6 rather than restating it.
Where the Shakes versus food reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Post #4 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Picking up post #6: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on Shakes versus food, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Post #11 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
A methods point on Shakes versus food rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
If someone has run Shakes versus food properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
The reason Shakes versus food keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Picking up post #17: that is the part I would want checked first.
Shakes versus food is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together.
The practical version of Shakes versus food is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Careful with the language on Shakes versus food. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Small methodological point on Shakes versus food: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Post #24 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Nothing here is medical or dietetic advice, and a dietitian is the professional this subcategory most often recommends.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
Building on post #28 rather than restating it.
Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
Trying to state the Shakes versus food position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.