That would answer the question for non-medical sorts and bodybuilders. It doesn’t answer it for the medical community.
Harvard is recommending 0.36g of protein per pound of total bodyweight. I’m skeptical that they’re saying that because they think that meat tastes good or because the whey protein industry is slipping them money under the table (and particularly when they’re mostly pushing lentils).
Assuming that @griffin1977 is eating about 30g of protein via meat and/or cheese a day, that’s still only about 2/3rds of what they would recommend for his wife and about 1/2 of what is recommended for him.
It is reasonable to be a bit skeptical of the nutritionist. However, we don’t know what information the nutritionist had available and we really shouldn’t be supporting the OP’s viewpoint, merely on his say-so. Whether @Moriarty truly needs a particular amount of protein to support his interests is, at the end of the day, a separate and academic discussion and shouldn’t be conflated with the OP’s, and shouldn’t take part in any decision making about the OP nutritionist.
I’m familiar with the medical arguments. But answering the question “what is the minimum amount of protein required for the body to maintain homeostasis?” is at odds with the goals of many people or what they eat in practice. Similar arguments are made with regard to salt intake - too much is bad for some people. I am also unsurprised nutritionists may often push protein.
The most plausible (values not exceeding the mean MRUS) percentages of total energy would be 19–35% for dietary protein, 22–40% for carbohydrate, and 28–58% for fat. In the United States, the third National Health and Nutrition Survey showed that among adults aged ≥20 y, protein contributed 15.5%, carbohydrate 49.0%, fat 34.0%, and alcohol 3.1% of total energy intake (45). Consequently, the range of percentages of energy for carbohydrate and protein in the diets of most hunter-gatherer societies worldwide (Table 4) falls outside the average value found in Western diets (45) and in recommended healthy diets [15% of energy from protein, 55% from carbohydrate, and 30% from fat (46)].
Gatherers gather what they can gather locally. In 1860 most people did not live to be forty. Our society and the average amount of labour and exercise is different, even if our biology is the same.
A lot of nutritional science is useless. It is hard and expensive to conduct groundbreaking studies. Estimates like 28-58%, even if true, are not that helpful. As a doctor I put a lot of value on data and research. As an older doctor, somewhat less so. Harvard has been spectacularly wrong before when it comes to nutrition and macronutrients.
But that is the question doctors ask. You do need essential amino acids to function, and the body does not store protein in the same way as fat or glycogen.
That being so, I don’t see how that’s an argument that the OP shouldn’t post his numbers, and that we should give him more reverence than we do Harvard?
I mean, just because you say that X research suggests that Y might be an optimum, that doesn’t mean that the OP is suddenly required to live with that as his religion. But it does, at least, answer the question that he actually asked.
So even if that is right I’d need 225g (7.5oz) meat (or cheese, or other foods with 20% or so protein) a day. I definitely eat a lot more than that, and I am pretty sure almost all meat eating vaguely healthy Americans do too.
I’m pretty sure it’s not though. There is a fairly blatant error in the article you posted:
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein is a modest 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, or 0.36 grams per pound
0.8 g/kg is NOT 0.36 g/lb it’s 0.18 g/lb, and that first number 0.8 g/kg appears to be correct based on other sources, so they clearly had an accidental 2x in their conversion. I have half a mind to try and correct it, that’s an official Harvard medical School page.
FWIW the whole metric of protein per unit body weight seems silly to me. Fat doesn’t require much protein to keep up. The more reasonable metric would be an estimate of fat free mass. Why would we possibly believe that very fit person of 170 pounds with say 15% body fat (lots of muscle mass) and an obese poorly conditioned person of 170 pounds with 25% body fat (fairly little muscle mass) should have the same ideal dietary protein intake?
And fraction of total calories? Also seems silly. Many Americans are taking in many more calories than they ideally should. Does a person who is overeating require a greater absolute amount of protein to keep the percent “right”?
It would make sense to have a recommendation based on fat free mass and activity level. That though still overthinks it. Don’t eat crap. Do eat real food, plants forward, and exercise. The macros will take of themselves.
Possibly. I’m not sure why the nutritionist thought you needed more. Did you provide her with an eating log or other detailed information? Or did she just look at you, not see a Greek God, and say, “Get more protein, ya flabster!”?
I don’t want to endorse ignoring her, entirely, without some sense of what information she was working off of.
My understanding is that we need protein in middle age and especially in our senior years to gain strength and muscle mass. Those things are very important for longevity. Being frail in old age increases mortality risk. Everything from lower immunity to fall risks. As we age it gets harder to gain muscle mass, increasing protein intake makes it a little easier.
I don’t recall any posts where the poster has made an effort to figure out how much protein they actually eat. Am I the only one? I genuinely had no idea before doing this. It’s not perfect - I used data from packaging and the USDA website, made a few assumptions and guesses (how much is a slice from an uncut loaf? No, I didn’t weigh the yoghurt or granola. Lettuce isn’t going to contain significant protein. Etc) and came up with 90.2g for yesterday, which was a reasonably typical day, I guess. One of the cites upthread included the following:
Once you reach ages 40–50 [and the rest - that’s me], sarcopenia, or losing muscle mass as you age, begins to set in. To prevent this and to maintain independence and quality of life, your protein needs increase to about 1–1.2 grams per kilogram or 75–90 grams per day for a 75-kilogram person.
People who exercise regularly also have higher needs, about 1.1 to 1.5 grams per kilogram. People who regularly lift weights, or are training for a running or cycling event need 1.2 to 1.7 grams per kilogram…
I’m just under 70kg; and I try to cycle 140 miles per week - I don’t know if that puts me in the 1 -.1.2 or 1.2 - 1,5 g/kg category, but either way I’m consuming just about enough protein, according to this snapshot. The only dietary restriction that I have which would affect protein consumption is that I don’t (can’t) eat red meat, though I do eat other meats, fish, eggs etc etc.
I want to be clear: there are very good reasons to have a diet relatively high in protein, especially as part of what we do to extend our healthspan as we age. Along with good reason to eat foods high in fiber and antioxidants. And to eat healthy fats. Exercise. So on.
My issue is with placing that macro consideration above the others. A high protein diet can be crap. First emphasis, number one dietary priority, is quality food. Most who do that will end up like you do, having enough protein without bothering to think about it.