How much protein do you really need? What science actually says
The global market for protein supplements and high-protein foods is now worth tens of billions of dollars, fueled by social-media messaging that encourages consumers to add protein powder to almost everything. Researchers note, however, that this enthusiasm is outpacing established science, Qazinform News Agency correspondent reports, citing Nature.
Exercise nutritionist Katherine Black from the University of Otago says many of the ultra-high targets shared online lack credible evidence. Protein is essential, she notes, but needs vary by individual and change with age, health status and lifestyle, not every person benefits from doubling or tripling their intake.
How much we need
The long-standing U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein, set in 2005 at 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight per day, is widely used as a benchmark. But scientists increasingly view it as a minimum, not a target.
Evidence summarized in the document indicates that an optimal intake for many adults is likely between 1.2 and 1.6 grams per kilogram per day. Higher amounts are particularly beneficial for older adults, who naturally lose muscle mass over time. In one study of adults aged 70 to 79, those consuming about 1.1 g/kg lost significantly less lean mass over three years than participants with lower intakes.
For athletes engaged in resistance training, slightly increased protein supports strength and muscle gain. However, research shows that benefits plateau around 1.6 g/kg — well below the 2.2 g/kg often advertised by fitness influencers. Excessive protein is not necessarily harmful for healthy individuals, but experts say it is largely inefficient: the body simply cannot use it effectively and wastes the surplus.
Why protein quality matters
A growing body of research emphasizes that all proteins are not created equal. The human body requires 20 amino acids, nine of which must come through food. Animal proteins typically provide all essential amino acids in proportions optimal for human needs. Plant proteins vary more widely, requiring a broader mix of foods for full amino-acid coverage.
This distinction affects how dietary guidelines classify “protein equivalents.” For example, U.S. guidelines consider 14 grams of almonds comparable to 28 grams of chicken breast. But research cited in the document suggests that matching the amino-acid profile of 28 grams of chicken would actually require more than 115 grams of almonds, a discrepancy that experts argue should be reflected in future recommendations.
Robert Wolfe, a muscle-metabolism researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, adds that the degree of food processing and cooking methods can influence how digestible a protein source is. Highly processed protein bars or powders may not deliver the same nutritional value as whole foods, though more research is needed to quantify these effects.
Although some isotope-tracer studies show greater incorporation of animal-based proteins into body tissues compared with plant proteins, scientists caution against interpreting this as a mandate to prioritize animal products. Plant-forward diets remain widely recommended by cardiology and public-health organizations due to lower saturated fat content and reduced environmental impact. Experts note that most people can meet all essential amino-acid needs with a mixed diet and do not require specialized supplements unless following entirely plant-exclusive regimens.
As nutrition researcher at the University of São Paulo, Fernanda Marrocos, puts it, the myth of ever-increasing protein needs has deeply permeated public consciousness, often reinforced by aggressive food-industry marketing. The simplest guidance remains unchanged: people eating enough calories and a reasonably diverse diet are likely already meeting their protein requirements.
Earlier, Qazinform News Agency reported on Manhattan Genomics, a company that aims to explore genome editing in human embryos to prevent inherited diseases.
