Counting rather than debating, for once. The debate can happen underneath.
I tracked honestly for two weeks and averaged 68g of protein against a target of about 120g. That gap is the whole problem and no meal plan I have found is written for it.
What I am after is how people are hitting a protein target on a genuinely suppressed appetite, because volume is the binding constraint rather than willingness.
Roughly, people seem to land in one of these:
- Held where they were and waited it out
- Changed one variable and kept everything else fixed
- Changed several things at once and cannot now attribute the result
- Stopped and reassessed from a clean baseline
Say which and say why — the why is the useful half.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. On a suppressed appetite the winning strategy is protein density per unit of volume, not per calorie. Isolate powders, Greek yoghurt and cottage cheese, egg whites, lean fish, and tinned tuna all deliver a lot of protein in a small physical volume. Front-load it: appetite is usually least suppressed in the first hours after waking and worst on the day or two after dosing, so get the majority in early in the day and early in the week.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
NeuroNate said:On a suppressed appetite the winning strategy is protein density per unit of volume, not per calorie.
True, and anyone with reduced kidney function needs that target set by a clinician rather than a forum. High protein is safe in normal kidneys and is not automatically safe in impaired ones.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochempaul_denver said:I tracked honestly for two weeks and averaged 68g of protein against a target of about 120g.
Can confirm the pattern paul_denver describes. The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why. 0.8 g/kg is the intake at which nitrogen balance is not negative in healthy weight-stable adults — a floor for deficiency prevention, not an optimum, and derived in a population that is not in a deficit. In a substantial energy deficit, protein requirement rises because amino acids are being oxidised for energy and because muscle protein synthesis is blunted. The literature on preserving lean mass during weight loss lands around 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg of reference body weight, which is roughly two to two and a half times the RDA.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.
DEXA scan update relevant to protein intake:
Scanned at months 0, 6, and 12. Here are the body comp numbers:
| Baseline | Month 6 | Month 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total mass | 268 lbs | 243 lbs | 205 lbs |
| Fat mass | 108 lbs | 68 lbs | 55 lbs |
| Lean mass | 161 lbs | 151 lbs | 152 lbs |
| Body fat % | 45% | 31% | 24% |
Lean mass preserved — actually GAINED 1-2 lbs thanks to progressive overload + 1.5g/kg protein. The protein intake discussion needs to include body comp data, not just scale weight.