Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.
Distribution matters less than total but it is not nothing. Roughly 25 to 40g per sitting with enough leucine to trigger synthesis, three or four times a day, is more effective than the same total in one enormous evening meal — and on a suppressed appetite the enormous evening meal is the one you will not finish anyway.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
What would genuinely help is knowing whether the RDA is the wrong reference entirely during rapid weight loss, and what the actual target should be. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
laura_annarbor said:Distribution matters less than total but it is not nothing.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. 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.
laura_annarbor said:Distribution matters less than total but it is not nothing.
I will push back on the powder-first advice. It works and it also trains people out of eating food, and when the drug stops the habits are what remain. Getting protein from meals is slower and holds up better afterwards.
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 BiochemShort answer first, then the reasoning. 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.
DanielChem_CHI said:On a suppressed appetite the winning strategy is protein density per unit of volume, not per calorie.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.