I have three DEXA scans on the same scanner at twelve-week intervals, fasted, same time of day.
I would like to know whether this claim survives contact with evidence.
If the answer is "nobody has tested that", I would like that stated so I can stop looking.
What would count as evidence here, and does it exist?
1.6 g/kg is the bottom of the supported range rather than a target: the meta-analytic plateau for lean-mass retention with resistance training sits between 1.6 and 2.2 g/kg, and in a deficit the argument is for the upper half. Put a number on it. At 80 kg of reference weight, 1.6 g/kg is 128 g a day — 512 kcal at 4 kcal a gram, which is 57 per cent of a 900 kcal intake and 43 per cent of a 1,200 kcal one. That is why protein has to be placed first at these intakes rather than fitted around what is left. Use reference or adjusted body weight, not total weight, where adiposity is substantial; 1.6 g/kg of a weight that is largely fat produces a target nobody could eat. The evidence behind the 1.6 figure is from resistance-trained populations in modest deficits, which is the caveat worth stating: this class produces steeper deficits and blunted appetite at the same time, so the intake that is easy to defend on paper is the hard one to actually hit. Split it across three or four servings. About 0.4 g/kg per meal saturates the synthetic response, and the surplus in one large serving does not carry forward to the next.
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.
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.
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.
Systematic reviews of high-protein intake in people with normal renal function have not found evidence of harm to kidney function.
The caveat is that anyone with chronic kidney disease has a genuinely different protein calculation and needs it done by a clinician.
Per-meal saturation is real. One enormous serving does not do the job of three.
HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.
Submit a sampleFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.
Visit GL BiochemAnswering this needs to know whether appetite is suppressed, because in this class the practical problem is achieving intake rather than choosing a target.
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.
Worth being precise here: 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.
Leucine threshold effects are documented across protein sources and explain the difference in per-serving requirements between animal and plant proteins.
Nothing here is dietetic or medical advice.
Healthy kidneys tolerate this fine. Diseased ones are a clinical question.
Put another way, plant-based patterns need somewhat higher totals and more attention to leucine content per serving to produce an equivalent response.
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.
Hydration requirements rise modestly with protein intake because urea excretion increases, which is a real effect and a small one.
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.
Start with which body weight the target is calculated from, because using total weight in someone with substantial adiposity inflates the number without benefit.
High protein intakes do not damage healthy kidneys in the published evidence; existing kidney disease is a genuine exception and is a clinical question.
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.
Research-use compounds are not approved for human use, and no supplement substitutes for total intake.
Plan protein first in the day; with suppressed appetite it will not happen otherwise.
Answer first: aim for 1.6 to 2.2 grams per kilogram of reference body weight per day, distributed across three or four servings, and treat it as the first constraint on the day rather than the last.
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.
Stable-isotope feeding studies establish the per-meal saturation of muscle protein synthesis at around 0.4 g/kg in young adults and higher in older ones.
Plant-based patterns need a higher total and more attention per serving.
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.