Setup, so nobody has to ask: 88 kg · 900 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.
Where is my error, and what is the correct working?
141 to 194 g a day. The range the resistance-training literature supports is 1.6 to 2.2 g per kilogram, which at 88 kg is 141–194 g. At 4 kcal per gram that is 563–774 kcal, or 63–86 per cent of a 900 intake — which is why protein has to be planned first at this energy level rather than fitted in afterwards. Split it across three or four servings; roughly 0.4 g/kg per meal saturates the synthetic response and the surplus in one large serving does not carry over.
Start with which body weight the target is calculated from, because using total weight in someone with substantial adiposity inflates the number without benefit.
Older adults need more per meal to overcome anabolic resistance, with 1.2 to 1.5 g/kg daily commonly quoted for maintenance and more in a deficit.
Appetite suppression makes protein-rich foods harder to eat because they are satiating. Liquid protein and leaner, less voluminous sources are the usual practical workaround.
Research-use compounds are not approved for human use, and no supplement substitutes for total intake.
Plan protein first in the day; with suppressed appetite it will not happen otherwise.
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsThe relevant physiology is the per-meal saturation of the synthetic response, which is why one large serving does not substitute for three moderate ones.
A practical construction: 30 to 40 grams at each of three meals plus a 20 to 30 gram snack covers most targets without any protein powder at all.
High protein intakes do not damage healthy kidneys in the published evidence; existing kidney disease is a genuine exception and is a clinical question.
The caveat is that anyone with chronic kidney disease has a genuinely different protein calculation and needs it done by a clinician.
Plant-based patterns need a higher total and more attention per serving.
Answering this needs to know whether appetite is suppressed, because in this class the practical problem is achieving intake rather than choosing a target.
Per meal, roughly 0.4 grams per kilogram saturates the synthetic response in most adults, which is about 30 to 40 grams for a typical person. Beyond that the surplus is oxidised or used for other purposes rather than adding to synthesis.
Use reference or adjusted body weight rather than total weight where adiposity is substantial: a common approach is ideal body weight plus a quarter of the excess, which avoids targets that no one could eat.
Stable-isotope feeding studies establish the per-meal saturation of muscle protein synthesis at around 0.4 g/kg in young adults and higher in older ones.
Per-meal saturation is real. One enormous serving does not do the job of three.
Specifically, this is one of the better-evidenced areas in nutrition and the disagreements are about the top of the range, not the bottom.
Hydration requirements rise modestly with protein intake because urea excretion increases, which is a real effect and a small one.
Nothing here is dietetic or medical advice.
1.6 to 2.2 g/kg of reference weight, split three or four ways. That is the answer.
The short version: total daily protein first, per-meal distribution second, timing a distant third.
The leucine threshold for triggering the response is around two and a half to three grams per meal. Thirty grams of most animal protein reaches it; thirty grams of many plant proteins does not, which is why plant-based targets run higher.
Leucine threshold effects are documented across protein sources and explain the difference in per-serving requirements between animal and plant proteins.
Healthy kidneys tolerate this fine. Diseased ones are a clinical question.
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.