Turns out there is no maximum amount of protein you can handle in 1 meal

[Heisman2]

I don't come around too much anymore so not sure if this was posted but this was an interesting study:

https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-me...showall%3Dtrue

They took 36 adults age 18-40 with BMI in the healthy or overweight range, had them do a full body workout, and then had them consume a drink with 0, 25, or 100 grams of protein. They then measured various metrics of protein synthesis/breakdown for 12 hours, and 100 grams led to substantially larger responses than 25 grams. Most of the more interesting results are in figure 4G and also figure 6. This goes against the previously thought concern that consuming too much protein would lead to amino acid oxidation without providing any actual benefit.

[EliKoehn]

I don't come around too much anymore so not sure if this was posted but this was an interesting study:

https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-me...showall%3Dtrue

They took 36 adults age 18-40 with BMI in the healthy or overweight range, had them do a full body workout, and then had them consume a drink with 0, 25, or 100 grams of protein. They then measured various metrics of protein synthesis/breakdown for 12 hours, and 100 grams led to substantially larger responses than 25 grams. Most of the more interesting results are in figure 4G and also figure 6. This goes against the previously thought concern that consuming too much protein would lead to amino acid oxidation without providing any actual benefit.

So, the "40g/meal" rule of thumb is now null?

I've been someone who tends not to prefer eating frequently but does have a large appetite when meals do occur and many have told me that this is simply a bad idea for the very reason that protein consumption can't be that concentrated, but ad libidum I eat about twice a day, one large meal and then something more modest and it feels like I'm going against the grain to make it more frequent, but I am truly not hungry the majority of the day even with that pattern.

[Heisman2]

So, the "40g/meal" rule of thumb is now null?

I've been someone who tends not to prefer eating frequently but does have a large appetite when meals do occur and many have told me that this is simply a bad idea for the very reason that protein consumption can't be that concentrated, but ad libidum I eat about twice a day, one large meal and then something more modest and it feels like I'm going against the grain to make it more frequent, but I am truly not hungry the majority of the day even with that pattern.

One caveat with this study is that they only examined people for one day, it's possible things may change when eating this way repeatedly. That said, I think it's mostly null.

[air2fakie]

So, the "40g/meal" rule of thumb is now null?

I've been someone who tends not to prefer eating frequently but does have a large appetite when meals do occur and many have told me that this is simply a bad idea for the very reason that protein consumption can't be that concentrated, but ad libidum I eat about twice a day, one large meal and then something more modest and it feels like I'm going against the grain to make it more frequent, but I am truly not hungry the majority of the day even with that pattern.

I wouldn't change your eating lifestyle based on one study over a 12-hour period of 36 people who all consumed the same drink with varying amounts of protein. Not saying it's not a useful study, but it just is what it is.

[Camarija]

I saw something about food in tge divestive system moving slower based on how much protein you consume.

I always assumed it was the body adjusting in order to maximize digestion

Someone mentioned it doesn't actually work that way due to insufficient / cap on protein synthesis

Honestly I'm not sure where the truth stands on this

I figure the body can adapt, but there's probably inefficiency the further you push protein consumption in one sitting

[DougyF7]

Thought this graphic was a good pull from the study:

[DougyF7]

Anecdotally I still think it makes sense to spread these protein servings out throughout the day. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner seem fitting, with maybe a pre-bedtime snack.

I just don’t think the body is meant to process a ton of protein at once, at least not on a regular basis.

I think intermittent fasting essentially exacerbates this phenomenon since you’re trying to get all your protein in in a smaller window. Not only is intermittent fasting suboptimal for muscle growth, but also unsafe for protein consumption imo.

Eat your breakfast kids.

[EliKoehn]

I wouldn't change your eating lifestyle based on one study over a 12-hour period of 36 people who all consumed the same drink with varying amounts of protein. Not saying it's not a useful study, but it just is what it is.

Haha, of course not. Partially I was trying to spark a debate surrounding it like some of the megathreads here we had back in 2021. I also enjoy learning from people more knowledgeable than me even if I am content to do this somewhat sub-optimally if that ends up being true for my own case.

One caveat with this study is that they only examined people for one day, it's possible things may change when eating this way repeatedly. That said, I think it's mostly null.

That does seem like a flaw in the method. However...

I just don’t think the body is meant to process a ton of protein at once, at least not on a regular basis.

... I find this particular point interesting. What's the basis for it? If humans are naturally hunter-gatherers, with agriculture and settled societies being Neolithic inventions by people already virtually identical biologically to modern humans, wouldn't their normative practice of eating be what our bodies are meant to handle and do in the present day? We could only speculate what that would look like in daily life for them (nuts and seeds, fruits and vegetables being likely frequent snacks), but killing game would likely result in a large short term consumption of specifically protein rich food (a family-sized band killing even a medium game animal shared among them would still be hundreds of grams of protein per person if it was eaten all at once), which makes me hesitant to agree. I am not sure how widely smoking the meat for preservation was practiced (or how effective it would have been for long preservation in the first place), but even then I'm not sure it wouldn't be a lot consumed in a short interval. Carnivorous animals obviously don't preserve anything after a kill, and we are somewhat similar to them in being mammals in general, and having canine teeth and sharing part of the same diet more specifically, so it seems plausible to me that large, infrequent feasts of protein were closer to the way that the earliest modern humans ate than a regular rotation of smaller servings.

It's just a casual rebuttal and I haven't looked into actual research surrounding this question (and maybe anthropologists are generally agreed one way or the other), but it seems like a reasonable angle to take.

[DougyF7]

... I find this particular point interesting. What's the basis for it? If humans are naturally hunter-gatherers, with agriculture and settled societies being Neolithic inventions by people already virtually identical biologically to modern humans, wouldn't their normative practice of eating be what our bodies are meant to handle and do in the present day? We could only speculate what that would look like in daily life for them (nuts and seeds, fruits and vegetables being likely frequent snacks), but killing game would likely result in a large short term consumption of specifically protein rich food (a family-sized band killing even a medium game animal shared among them would still be hundreds of grams of protein per person if it was eaten all at once), which makes me hesitant to agree. I am not sure how widely smoking the meat for preservation was practiced (or how effective it would have been for long preservation in the first place), but even then I'm not sure it wouldn't be a lot consumed in a short interval. Carnivorous animals obviously don't preserve anything after a kill, and we are somewhat similar to them in being mammals in general, and having canine teeth and sharing part of the same diet more specifically, so it seems plausible to me that large, infrequent feasts of protein were closer to the way that the earliest modern humans ate than a regular rotation of smaller servings.

It's just a casual rebuttal and I haven't looked into actual research surrounding this question (and maybe anthropologists are generally agreed one way or the other), but it seems like a reasonable angle to take.

I think to your point, they probably didn’t have game meat to eat very often and not sure on preservation myself. But that’s why I said I don’t think it’s a good idea on a regular basis. Maybe they had it for a day or two and then went a while without it on the veggies kind of diet you mentioned.

Nowadays we can eat like that day after day after day. And that’s what a lot of people do, especially if they are tracking macros and calories. They’re hitting exact protein numbers every day.

If you go back through some threads on this forum (and one recently) there are people whose doctors say they should cut back on protein due to their bloodwork results, namely the effect on their kidneys. Or they have urea (protein) in their urine. They know this because it burns.

As far as I know, and seeing one study recently point it out, many people are taking in way more protein than they need. Combine that with the fact that protein needs increase with age, you run out of headroom for later in life.

Personally, after doing my own research, I think most people would benefit on 0.6g per pound of lbm or ffm for protein, not ideal body weight. So maybe 90-120g if you’re a bodybuilder.

And fats need to be dialed in somewhat because you don’t want too many unsaturated fats in your diet.

So I think this leaves carbs as a great energy source that most people remove from their diet in place of protein and fat. But it should really be the other way around.

There’s also the fact that so many foods are high protein now. I just saw a new cereal that has 20g protein per serving. Protein should be the least tracked macro in my opinion because it’s really difficult in today’s world NOT to get enough of it.

[air2fakie]

Carnivorous animals obviously don't preserve anything after a kill, and we are somewhat similar to them in being mammals in general, and having canine teeth and sharing part of the same diet more specifically, so it seems plausible to me that large, infrequent feasts of protein were closer to the way that the earliest modern humans ate than a regular rotation of smaller servings.

I haven't eaten since my large protein feast back in the fall. I've been in hibernation since.

[EliKoehn]

I think to your point, they probably didn’t have game meat to eat very often and not sure on preservation myself. But that’s why I said I don’t think it’s a good idea on a regular basis. Maybe they had it for a day or two and then went a while without it on the veggies kind of diet you mentioned.

Nowadays we can eat like that day after day after day. And that’s what a lot of people do, especially if they are tracking macros and calories. They’re hitting exact protein numbers every day.

If you go back through some threads on this forum (and one recently) there are people whose doctors say they should cut back on protein due to their bloodwork results, namely the effect on their kidneys. Or they have urea (protein) in their urine. They know this because it burns.

As far as I know, and seeing one study recently point it out, many people are taking in way more protein than they need. Combine that with the fact that protein needs increase with age, you run out of headroom for later in life.

Personally, after doing my own research, I think most people would benefit on 0.6g per pound of lbm or ffm for protein, not ideal body weight. So maybe 90-120g if you’re a bodybuilder.

And fats need to be dialed in somewhat because you don’t want too many unsaturated fats in your diet.

So I think this leaves carbs as a great energy source that most people remove from their diet in place of protein and fat. But it should really be the other way around.

There’s also the fact that so many foods are high protein now. I just saw a new cereal that has 20g protein per serving. Protein should be the least tracked macro in my opinion because it’s really difficult in today’s world NOT to get enough of it.

That's a thoughtful post. I'm not sure about the protein being that low, but, I'm not especially well-read on this and will concede that there's a lot I don't know; just anecdotally I don't see it being problematic in isolation from other more obvious sources of chronic poor health; inactivity, particularly poor dietary choices beyond just macro totals, substance abuse, etc. One thing I'm suspicious of as well is that the one demographic that meticulously tracks their macros year in and year out is bodybuilders, who are likely to be taking steroids or other unregulated, dangerous supplements as well, which would obviously be exempt from Ockham's first pass with the razor on this question in isolating what's most realistically the reason.

I haven't eaten since my large protein feast back in the fall. I've been in hibernation since.

Ha, those early big game hunts will do that for you.

[paulinkansas]

The Vince Gironda hormone precursor shake has about 70 grams of protein. It takes me an hour to drink one, and I feel satiated for about 6 hours.

[DougyF7]

The Vince Gironda hormone precursor shake has about 70 grams of protein. It takes me an hour to drink one, and I feel satiated for about 6 hours.

That’s probably a good call drinking it over an hour like that. I don’t think I’d have that much self control if it was a concoction I really liked.