How much protein in grams do I need at 103 kg on 1,400 kcal a day?

Setup, so nobody has to ask: 103 kg · 1,400 kcal.

The units are where I keep going wrong, so please be explicit about them.

I have sanity-checked the order of magnitude and it seems right, which is not the same as being right.

How many significant figures are actually justified here?

More usefully, a plateau at four to six months is the expected shape of the curve, not a failure of it. Energy expenditure falls with mass, and the deficit closes itself unless intake falls further.

DEXA precision is better than people assume for fat mass and worse than people assume for lean mass in a single scan — the least significant change for regional lean mass on a well-maintained scanner is on the order of a few per cent. That means two scans three months apart can differ without anything having happened, and it means a scan sequence needs to be at least three points before a trend is interpretable.

Specifically, absolute strength holds up better than scale weight during a deficit for a straightforward reason: strength is substantially neural and skill-based, and the contractile tissue you retain is being trained harder relative to its size. Grip strength and repetition maxima are therefore lagging indicators of muscle loss rather than leading ones, which is an argument for measuring both.

The limitation of the arithmetic is that it assumes intake is being measured accurately, and self-reported intake is systematically underestimated by a substantial margin.

The plateau is arithmetic. Treat it as arithmetic and the response follows.

edited 20 Apr 2026 by Dr_Idris_Coulibaly — updated for the 2026 guidance change

The distinction that resolves this is between proportional loss and functional loss. Losing lean mass in proportion to total mass is what happens in every weight loss intervention. Losing function is not, and function is measurable.

The minimum effective resistance-training dose in a deficit is lower than most programmes assume. Two sessions a week covering the major movement patterns, with loads taken close to failure, is sufficient to retain most of what would otherwise be lost. Volume beyond that adds recovery cost that a large energy deficit is poorly placed to pay.

The part that matters: cardio does not interfere with lean-mass retention at the volumes anyone here is doing; the interference effect in the literature appears at high concurrent volumes in trained athletes. What cardio does at a large deficit is add to the deficit, which is either the point or a problem depending on the objective.

The evidence for a higher protein intake preserving lean mass during an energy deficit is reasonably strong in resistance-trained populations and weaker in sedentary ones, with the meta-analytic estimates supporting intakes in the region of 1.6 g/kg over lower intakes when training is present[1].

A maintenance plan written before you need it is worth more than a better loss plan.

Start with the arithmetic, because the answer to the practical question is usually a number and the number is usually achievable.

The regain trajectory after stopping is roughly a mirror of the loss trajectory, and it is not primarily a willpower phenomenon. Appetite signalling returns, energy expenditure remains suppressed relative to the original mass, and the two combine. That is an argument for a maintenance plan existing before the stop, rather than an argument against stopping.

Food noise returning is not obviously tolerance. Receptor desensitisation is one hypothesis; a second is that the initial effect was partly novelty and partly the steep early deficit, and a third is that intake has drifted upward and the signal is being outcompeted rather than weakened. The three make different predictions about what a dose increase would do.

Two resistance sessions a week and a protein target you actually hit will do more than any refinement beyond them.

Worth being precise here: the commonly quoted figures for lean-mass loss are mostly measurement artefacts, and the artefact is well understood: fat-free mass as measured includes water and glycogen, both of which fall early and neither of which is contractile tissue.

The first four weeks of loss is substantially fluid and glycogen. Each gram of stored glycogen carries roughly three grams of water, and total glycogen is on the order of 400 to 500 g, so the obligatory water shift alone accounts for a couple of kilograms. This is why the first month looks dramatic and the second looks like a plateau when in fact the fat-loss rate has not changed.

The caveat is that population averages tell you about populations. Your own trajectory is a sample of one and should be read as a trend, not as a deviation from a published mean.

Train, eat the protein, measure something functional, and give the trend three months before you interpret it.

In practice, the mechanism is worth having straight, because it predicts which interventions can work and which cannot.

Fibre at very low total intake is a trap. Soluble fibre needs water and motility to work; insoluble fibre adds bulk to a slow transit. At 900 kcal a day with delayed gastric emptying, an osmotic agent is more predictable than a bulking one, and adequate fluid is doing more work than either.

Adaptive thermogenesis — a fall in energy expenditure beyond that predicted by the change in body composition — is documented across weight-loss interventions and is the mechanistic basis for the plateau being expected rather than anomalous.

I would be careful with the supplement literature here; effect sizes are small, the studies are mostly in trained young men, and generalisation to a large deficit is not obviously valid.

Measure strength as well as mass. It is cheaper, it is less noisy, and it is closer to what you actually care about.