Protein: Grams or % of Calories?

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

kpsyche wrote: »

Personally I think that without knowing the medical history, weight, age, gender, ethnicity, physical activity level and a whole other bunch of factors about a person, recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg).

Based on 0.8g/kg if the OP's weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65kg (I have no idea if they are or not) then 50g of protein a day is probably adequate and consistent with the dietary guidelines of Europe, the USA, WHO and probably nearly every other country.

From WHO Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition
"The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day"
"It is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk.
However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of
3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper
limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free."

0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption.

You edited that paragraph in an odd manner. WHY?!?!?

Unedited as below

The protein requirements of adult men and women of various body weights are shown in Table 46. For adults, the protein requirement per kg body weight is considered to be the same for both sexes, at all ages, and for all body weights within the acceptable range. The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day, for proteins with a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score value of 1.0. No safe upper limit has been identified, and it is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk. However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of 3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free.

Although, more interesting is the section below.

13.6 Is there a maximum limit of dietary protein intake? As indicated above, in developed countries most people consume substantially more protein than the safe level, especially through consumption of meat-based diets at energy intakes required to meet the demands of high levels of physical activity, or with supplementary protein intakes often consumed by young men attempting to increase their musculature. Typical intakes are
up to 3.0 g/kg from food (72) with an extra 1 g/kg from supplements. This is equivalent to 320 g/day for an 80-kg male, and at energy intakes which match an expenditure of twice the basal metabolic rate (i.e. 3800 kcal/day). This implies an overall protein:energy ratio of the diet of 34% (see 72). Such intakes are similar to those involved in studies of the impact of dietary protein intake on nitrogen balance, where protein intakes were increased to
200–300 g/day for 2 months (73). Such practices are almost certainly ineffective in terms of gain of muscle mass, even though substantial nitrogen retention is often reported (73, 74). Where measurements of muscle mass or
protein concentration are made no changes are identified (75), suggesting the apparent gain in body nitrogen to be an artefact of the nitrogen balance method at these very high intakes, possibly with an unmeasured source of
loss of nitrogen (71, 76).

While there have been no systematic investigations of the safety of such high intakes (at least to the current available knowledge), it must be assumed, given that such dietary habits are widespread, that any untoward effects are subtle, long-term and unreported. The most widely quoted potential problems relate to renal function and damage, but as discussed above the evidence for such claims in otherwise healthy individuals does not stand up to scrutiny. Similarly, any adverse impact on bone mineral balance would appear to be more than adequately balanced by the positive influence of weight-bearing exercise in strength training, judging by most reports of high bone mineral content in power athletes.

And Finally, in conclusion

As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone. High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

Bolded for emphasis.

As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and [bpold]protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone.[/b] High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

Bolded for emphasis.

If you think building muscle is hard, try building bone as a mature adult. Of course, getting them broken can help.

Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes


High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced


So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?

kpsyche wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

kpsyche wrote: »

Personally I think that without knowing the medical history, weight, age, gender, ethnicity, physical activity level and a whole other bunch of factors about a person, recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg).

Based on 0.8g/kg if the OP's weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65kg (I have no idea if they are or not) then 50g of protein a day is probably adequate and consistent with the dietary guidelines of Europe, the USA, WHO and probably nearly every other country.

From WHO Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition
"The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day"
"It is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk.
However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of
3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper
limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free."

0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption.

You edited that paragraph in an odd manner. WHY?!?!?

Unedited as below

The protein requirements of adult men and women of various body weights are shown in Table 46. For adults, the protein requirement per kg body weight is considered to be the same for both sexes, at all ages, and for all body weights within the acceptable range. The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day, for proteins with a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score value of 1.0. No safe upper limit has been identified, and it is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk. However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of 3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free.

Although, more interesting is the section below.

13.6 Is there a maximum limit of dietary protein intake? As indicated above, in developed countries most people consume substantially more protein than the safe level, especially through consumption of meat-based diets at energy intakes required to meet the demands of high levels of physical activity, or with supplementary protein intakes often consumed by young men attempting to increase their musculature. Typical intakes are
up to 3.0 g/kg from food (72) with an extra 1 g/kg from supplements. This is equivalent to 320 g/day for an 80-kg male, and at energy intakes which match an expenditure of twice the basal metabolic rate (i.e. 3800 kcal/day). This implies an overall protein:energy ratio of the diet of 34% (see 72). Such intakes are similar to those involved in studies of the impact of dietary protein intake on nitrogen balance, where protein intakes were increased to
200–300 g/day for 2 months (73). Such practices are almost certainly ineffective in terms of gain of muscle mass, even though substantial nitrogen retention is often reported (73, 74). Where measurements of muscle mass or
protein concentration are made no changes are identified (75), suggesting the apparent gain in body nitrogen to be an artefact of the nitrogen balance method at these very high intakes, possibly with an unmeasured source of
loss of nitrogen (71, 76).

While there have been no systematic investigations of the safety of such high intakes (at least to the current available knowledge), it must be assumed, given that such dietary habits are widespread, that any untoward effects are subtle, long-term and unreported. The most widely quoted potential problems relate to renal function and damage, but as discussed above the evidence for such claims in otherwise healthy individuals does not stand up to scrutiny. Similarly, any adverse impact on bone mineral balance would appear to be more than adequately balanced by the positive influence of weight-bearing exercise in strength training, judging by most reports of high bone mineral content in power athletes.

And Finally, in conclusion

As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone. High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

Bolded for emphasis.

As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and [bpold]protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone.[/b] High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

Bolded for emphasis.

If you think building muscle is hard, try building bone as a mature adult. Of course, getting them broken can help.

Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes


High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced


So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?

Becauae there is sufficient evidence that the RDI is inadquate for those who exercises. There are multiple meta analyses to back that up.

kpsyche wrote: »

deannalfisher wrote: »

kpsyche wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.

I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.

OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.

I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew

It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.

Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".

Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.

How about a guy with a PhD and studies nutrition and metabolism every day? Because that is who I get my nutritional recommendations from that counter guidelines that were published over a decade ago (which is science years is eons...unless it’s a seminal work)

You must have missed the qualification I made in my first post where I stated that giving protein intake recommendations that are outside of dietary guidelines without knowing the medical history or other pertinent information, etc of the person being advised is what I think is not a good idea. The responsible, in my opinion, option is to recommend they stick to the guidelines or get advise from a professional. A dietician (or a nutritionist with a PhD I guess) presumably has enough details concerning the person they are advising that they can make a recommendation for that individual and that's a whole different matter and not what I was talking about at all.

If the OP had a kidney concern or other medical concern, than it would be their responsibility to have that conversation with their medical team. The OP is very active and it is not irresponsible or unreasonable to suggest higher levels of protein to aid in recovery and muscle maintenance based on a plethora or evidence. The data i have posted is from some of the top PhDs in the field who hold multiple certifications and degrees in nutritional sciences. The information is based on a computation of recent studies. Protein is one of the most studied things in nutritional science.

You can certainly recommend following dietary guidelines, but i will not recommend them as they address minimums, not what is optimal.

kpsyche wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.

I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.

OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.

I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew

0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.

Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):

https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12

As a person who is active (rowing, spinning, lifting, etc.), aging (62), and vegetarian (so some/many of my protein grams are incomplete WRT essential amino acids), I think it's a reasonable bet-hedge to exceed the USDA/WHO/etc. RDA. Research supports that.

And, old (senile? ) though I may be, I do still understand the difference between pounds and kilograms. To suggest that I've missed that tiny detail . . . that's insulting.

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

kpsyche wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.

I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.

OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.

I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew

0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.

Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):

https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12

As a person who is active (rowing, spinning, lifting, etc.), aging (62), and vegetarian (so some/many of my protein grams are incomplete WRT essential amino acids), I think it's a reasonable bet-hedge to exceed the USDA/WHO/etc. RDA. Research supports that.

And, old (senile? ) though I may be, I do still understand the difference between pounds and kilograms. To suggest that I've missed that tiny detail . . . that's insulting.

Not to white knight, but how can you be insulted by a post that wasn't responding to you? Embedding doesn't show you on the line of threads you're responding to.

And the post that did elicit the statement about the numbers being based on .8 g/kg not per pound was a response to discussion of RDI, which is expressed in g/kg, not g/lb. So it seems like a reasonable point to make when someone responds with a statement that ".82 g/lb is the maximum not the minimum." Even if those two posters (neither of which was you) were having a misunderstanding and not talking about the same thing, that's a misunderstanding, not an insult.

I responded specifically to a post that said "These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound)" on a thread that included:

". . . recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg)."

". . . 0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption."

I don't need to have been a previous participant in this specific thread to hold the opinion that repeatedly implying or explicitly saying that others can't tell pounds from kilograms is insulting. And, as a person who routinely advocates for more than the USDA/WHO minimums for people in a deficit, active, aging, largely plant-based, etc., I don't think it's a far reach to consider myself in that ill-defined "often see cited on MFP" sort of group.

I routinely underscore on such threads that I do mean pounds, not kilograms, specifically because of this perception by the occasional poster that somehow people like me are confused about units. It's entirely possible that I'm over-sensitive about this issue because of reading this "kilograms not pounds" thing repeatedly. If I've over-reacted on that account, I'm sorry.

They and I disagree about optimal protein intake. That's fine. Saying that people who disagree with one about protein requirements are confusing pounds and kilograms - without attempting any kind of clarifying discussion - goes a bit beyond civil disagreement about protein requirements, IMO.

Edited: Typo

psuLemon wrote: »

kpsyche wrote: »

deannalfisher wrote: »

kpsyche wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.

I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.

OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.

I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew

It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.

Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".

Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.

How about a guy with a PhD and studies nutrition and metabolism every day? Because that is who I get my nutritional recommendations from that counter guidelines that were published over a decade ago (which is science years is eons...unless it’s a seminal work)

You must have missed the qualification I made in my first post where I stated that giving protein intake recommendations that are outside of dietary guidelines without knowing the medical history or other pertinent information, etc of the person being advised is what I think is not a good idea. The responsible, in my opinion, option is to recommend they stick to the guidelines or get advise from a professional. A dietician (or a nutritionist with a PhD I guess) presumably has enough details concerning the person they are advising that they can make a recommendation for that individual and that's a whole different matter and not what I was talking about at all.

If the OP had a kidney concern or other medical concern, than it would be their responsibility to have that conversation with their medical team. The OP is very active and it is not irresponsible or unreasonable to suggest higher levels of protein to aid in recovery and muscle maintenance based on a plethora or evidence. The data i have posted is from some of the top PhDs in the field who hold multiple certifications and degrees in nutritional sciences. The information is based on a computation of recent studies. Protein is one of the most studied things in nutritional science.

You can certainly recommend following dietary guidelines, but i will not recommend them as they address minimums, not what is optimal.

That's where the misunderstanding lies, I think. They certainly do not address minimums (an RDI/RDA/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is not a minimum) and I don't know why many people think they do.

Anyway, I've had enough of this thread; it's just going around in circles