This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Confirming post #28 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
I had written a reply contradicting post #30 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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 mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
Tracking intake has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
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.
Coming back to post #34, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The practical problem is that appetite suppression makes hitting a target genuinely hard, and "eat more protein" ignores the actual constraint.
This follows post #36 rather than contradicting it.
Two claims get bundled together under Tracking intake and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
I changed my mind about Tracking intake after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Liquid sources are tolerated better than solid ones by many people here, and that is a practical observation rather than a nutritional principle.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
Temperature and texture change what is tolerable for a lot of people during the first weeks, and that is worth experimenting with before concluding nothing works.
Post #39 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
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.
The reason Tracking intake is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Meeting protein targets on suppressed appetite: this is where the practical difficulty lies. Eating more protein when appetite is suppressed is genuinely hard. Front-loading the day, prioritising density over volume, and accepting this is a problem worth solving all help.
The arithmetic in post #47 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Taking post #50 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
Post #48 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Self-reported intake is optimistic by a consistent margin in the published comparisons, which is worth applying to your own numbers.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
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.
Renal considerations around higher protein intake apply to people with existing renal impairment and are frequently generalised beyond that population.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Tracking intake in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Everything in post #56 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Tracking intake than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Where somebody reports losing strength, intake and training stimulus are the first two things to look at rather than the compound.
Tracking intake is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.