Numbers first: 103 kg · 1,200 kcal.
This should be a straightforward calculation and I keep getting two different answers.
The numbers are arbitrary; the method is what I am after.
Can someone show the working rather than just the answer?
165 to 227 g a day. The range the resistance-training literature supports is 1.6 to 2.2 g per kilogram, which at 103 kg is 165–227 g. At 4 kcal per gram that is 659–906 kcal, or 55–76 per cent of a 1,200 intake — which is why protein has to be planned first at this energy level rather than fitted in afterwards. Split it across three or four servings; roughly 0.4 g/kg per meal saturates the synthetic response and the surplus in one large serving does not carry over.
The honest answer is that most people in a deficit fall well short, and closing that gap matters more than any refinement above it.
Use reference or adjusted body weight rather than total weight where adiposity is substantial: a common approach is ideal body weight plus a quarter of the excess, which avoids targets that no one could eat.
| Method | Measures | Sensitive to | Least significant change |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEXA | Three-compartment by attenuation | Hydration, positioning | ~2–3 % regional lean |
| BIA (consumer) | Impedance, modelled | Hydration, food, temperature | Not usable at this timescale |
| Air displacement | Two-compartment by density | Lung volume, hair, clothing | ~1–2 % fat mass |
| Tape and scale | Circumference, mass | Technique | Surprisingly usable as a trend |
The leucine threshold for triggering the response is around two and a half to three grams per meal. Thirty grams of most animal protein reaches it; thirty grams of many plant proteins does not, which is why plant-based targets run higher.
Meta-analytic estimates place the plateau of the dose-response for lean-mass retention with resistance training around 1.6 g/kg, with a confidence interval extending to about 2.2.
Targets are population estimates; individual requirements vary and there is no cheap way to measure yours.
1.6 to 2.2 g/kg of reference weight, split three or four ways. That is the answer.
edited 15 Mar 2025 by rhian_prydderch — added the placebo-arm figures
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsStart with which body weight the target is calculated from, because using total weight in someone with substantial adiposity inflates the number without benefit.
Older adults need more per meal to overcome anabolic resistance, with 1.2 to 1.5 g/kg daily commonly quoted for maintenance and more in a deficit.
It helps to be literal here: high protein intakes do not damage healthy kidneys in the published evidence; existing kidney disease is a genuine exception and is a clinical question.
Healthy kidneys tolerate this fine. Diseased ones are a clinical question.
The short version: total daily protein first, per-meal distribution second, timing a distant third.
Hydration requirements rise modestly with protein intake because urea excretion increases, which is a real effect and a small one.
Per meal, roughly 0.4 grams per kilogram saturates the synthetic response in most adults, which is about 30 to 40 grams for a typical person. Beyond that the surplus is oxidised or used for other purposes rather than adding to synthesis.
Per-meal saturation is real. One enormous serving does not do the job of three.
The relevant detail is that the relevant physiology is the per-meal saturation of the synthetic response, which is why one large serving does not substitute for three moderate ones.
A practical construction: 30 to 40 grams at each of three meals plus a 20 to 30 gram snack covers most targets without any protein powder at all.
Research-use compounds are not approved for human use, and no supplement substitutes for total intake.
Plant-based patterns need a higher total and more attention per serving.
Mechanically, this is one of the better-evidenced areas in nutrition and the disagreements are about the top of the range, not the bottom.
Appetite suppression makes protein-rich foods harder to eat because they are satiating. Liquid protein and leaner, less voluminous sources are the usual practical workaround.
Plan protein first in the day; with suppressed appetite it will not happen otherwise.
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.