Self-reported intake is optimistic by a consistent margin in the published comparisons, which is worth applying to your own numbers.
1 like 2mo
Nutrition & Training · Protein & intake · continued
Tracking intake honestly when appetite is absent posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
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.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
0 likes 2mo
l.vermeulen, post #16: 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. Go to post
Coming back to post #29, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
My experience of tracking intake contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
2 likes 2mo
Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound.
0 likes 2mo
t.varga, post #14: Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein. Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first. Go to post
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.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Confirming post #37 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Fibre: adequate fibre intake supports fullness and gut motility, both of which matter during the gastrointestinal effects of these compounds. High fibre on top of appetite suppression requires attention to hydration and gradual introduction.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
14 likes 2mo
Adding the boring version of tracking intake, 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.
5 likes 2mo
The arithmetic in post #37 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Before the thread moves on from tracking intake — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
0 likes 2mo
sterile_file, post #1: On the subject in the title: Tracking intake honestly when appetite is absent Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin tracking intake 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 produce. What I have: a consistent… Go to post
An honest declaration on tracking intake: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
k.bettencourt, post #10: Answering the question post #8 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. That is all I can say without guessing. Go to post
Tracking intake is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Density matters more than quantity when total intake is limited. The same protein in a smaller volume is the whole game.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
5 likes 2mo
b.aalto, post #5: Adding the measurement that post #3 says would settle it. Micronutrition alongside protein: eating protein foods that are also good sources of micronutrients (iron, B vitamins, zinc) solves two problems at once. That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category. Go to post
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
l.vermeulen, post #16: 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. Go to post
Everything in post #44 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Distinguishing three things in the tracking intake discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Tracking intake: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
26 likes 2mo
e.adeyemi, post #44: Tracking intake is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at. Go to post
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
0 likes 2mo
m.ilunga, post #48: Everything in post #44 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. Distinguishing three things in the tracking intake discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both. Go to post
Building on post #49 rather than restating 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.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
t.marchetti, post #32: 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. A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations. Go to post
Everything in post #52 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Something worth flagging about tracking intake: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
Distribution across the day appears to matter less than total for most outcomes, and it matters practically because a single large meal is harder when appetite is reduced.
2 likes 2mo
s.teixeira, post #46: Density matters more than quantity when total intake is limited. The same protein in a smaller volume is the whole game. The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation. Go to post
Tracking intake for a week rather than permanently is usually enough to find out whether there is a problem. Permanent tracking has its own costs.
The arithmetic in post #55 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Tracking intake has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
8 likes 1mo
Worth separating two things that post #55 runs together.
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.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
4 likes 1mo