Follow-up: Tracking intake honestly when appetite is absent

Tracking intake honestly when appetite is absent Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number without a method is not a measurement.

Same scale, same time of day, same conditions, 79 weeks. I have also recorded protein intake and resistance-training sessions, both self-reported and both therefore optimistic.

The reason I am posting is a pattern in the middle of the series that I cannot explain and that I suspect is measurement rather than signal.

Leucine and MPS: leucine stimulates muscle protein synthesis at a threshold of roughly 2 to 3 grams per meal. That influences how much protein per meal matters, but total daily protein still matters most.

Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

Liquid versus solid: protein in liquid form (shakes) is easier to consume in volume but might not be as satiating as solid food. Using both together can help.

Fibre: adequate fibre intake supports fullness and gut motility, both of which matter during the gastrointestinal effects of these compounds. High fibre on top of appetite suppression requires attention to hydration and gradual introduction.

Protein targets during weight loss: the standard recommendation is 1.6 to 2.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. Individual requirements vary but that range is a reasonable starting point.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

post #9 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Protein supplements: whey, casein, and plant-based protein powders can help hit targets when whole-food intake is limited by appetite. Protein quality (all essential amino acids) matters more than form.

post #10 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Meeting protein targets on suppressed appetite: this is where the practical difficulty lies. Eating more protein when appetite is suppressed is genuinely hard. Front-loading the day, prioritising density over volume, and accepting this is a problem worth solving all help.

Worth separating two things that post #8 runs together.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Eating anything at all: on substantial appetite suppression, eating enough total calories to maintain lean mass is the priority. Protein comes second to total intake.

Timing of protein: spreading protein intake across the day, with some at each meal, is more practical than trying to hit the whole target at one sitting on suppressed appetite.