This gets cited here weekly, usually second-hand, so it is worth setting out what it does and does not establish.
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.
The bit I cannot resolve on my own is whether the RDA is the wrong reference entirely during rapid weight loss, and what the actual target should be. I have searched first, so if this is covered somewhere point me at it and I will read it.
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.
HealthEcon_DC said:Distribution matters less than total but it is not nothing.
HealthEcon_DC has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. 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.
HealthEcon_DC 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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsTaking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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.
PeptideChemSF said:On a suppressed appetite the winning strategy is protein density per unit of volume, not per calorie.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.