Micronutrient adequacy at low total intake — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Trying to work out what would count as evidence on micronutrient adequacy, before collecting any. This is the part I usually skip and it is the part that makes the rest useful.
If two explanations predict the same observation, observing it does not help. So: what observation would separate them?
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Where intake has fallen a long way, protein is usually the first thing to fall because it is the least appealing macronutrient when appetite is reduced.
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.
The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.
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.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.
Micronutrition alongside protein: eating protein foods that are also good sources of micronutrients (iron, B vitamins, zinc) solves two problems at once.
Post #7 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
What would change my mind on micronutrient adequacy is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Coming back to post #7, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Micronutrient adequacy is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Distribution across the day appears to matter less than total for most outcomes, and it matters practically because a single large meal is harder when appetite is reduced.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Micronutrient adequacy becomes a real question at very low total intake and is much less discussed than protein.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Coming back to post #11, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on micronutrient adequacy, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
I read post #14 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Since micronutrient adequacy keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Tracking intake for a week rather than permanently is usually enough to find out whether there is a problem. Permanent tracking has its own costs.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
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.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
On post #19 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
The claim about micronutrient adequacy upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Fibre and fluid tend to fall alongside protein when intake drops, and the constipation reported here follows from that as much as from the mechanism.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
The mechanism is not mysterious. Substantial energy restriction with inadequate protein and no resistance stimulus loses lean tissue as well as fat.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.