HomeDiets › High Protein Diet

High Protein: How Much You Actually Need, and Why

Protein is the one macronutrient almost nobody argues you should eat less of, but there's real disagreement about how much is "enough," a persistent myth that too much wrecks your kidneys, and a genuinely surprising theory that protein quietly controls how much of everything else you eat. This is the evidence-led version: the number that actually matters for muscle, the myths worth burying, and why protein is the smartest lever most people aren't pulling.

General information, not personal medical advice. If you have kidney disease or another medical condition, set your protein targets with your GP or an Accredited Practising Dietitian.

Infographic 1, what protein does
Builds muscleRepairs & grows Keeps you fullMost satiating Burns energyHighest thermic effect The most satiating, hardest-to-store macronutrient.
Protein pulls three levers at once: it builds and repairs muscle, keeps you fuller than carbs or fat, and costs the most energy just to digest.
Layer 0, The basics

What protein is for

Protein supplies the amino acids your body uses to build and repair everything from muscle to enzymes. Australia's official minimum (RDI) is modest, about 0.75 g/kg/day for women (~46 g) and 0.84 g/kg/day for men (~64 g), rising after age 70. But that number was set to prevent deficiency, not to optimise body composition, satiety or healthy ageing, which is where the interesting debate begins.

Layer 1, Foundations

Requirement vs optimal

The RDI keeps you from getting sick. Researchers like Stuart Phillips (McMaster) argue the optimal intake, for holding onto muscle as you age, staying full while dieting, and building lean mass, is meaningfully higher. Australia's Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range for protein is 15–25% of energy, already a wide window.

How protein works

Protein is the most satiating macronutrient and has the highest thermic effect (your body burns more energy just digesting it). It also delivers leucine, the amino acid that flips the switch on muscle protein synthesis; a per-meal "leucine threshold" (~2.5–3 g) is why spreading protein across meals, not loading it all at dinner, is often recommended.

Diagram 1, muscle protein synthesis
Protein Amino acids Leucine crosses~2.5–3g threshold Muscle proteinsynthesis fires Spread protein across meals to cross the threshold more often Distribution is an optimisation, total daily intake still matters most.
Leucine is the trigger. Crossing its per-meal threshold fires muscle protein synthesis, which is why even protein spread across meals tends to beat one big hit at dinner.
Layer 2, What the evidence shows

An honest scorecard

Muscle & strength, the number that mattersStrong meta-analysis

The definitive answer comes from Morton, Schoenfeld, Phillips et al. (British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018), a meta-analysis of 49 studies and 1,863 people. Protein supplementation meaningfully boosts resistance-training gains (fat-free mass up ~0.30 kg), but with a clear breakpoint at around 1.62 g/kg/day (95% CI 1.03–2.20). Beyond that, more protein didn't add more muscle.[1] That ~1.6 g/kg figure is the single most useful number on this page.

Infographic 2, the dose-response curve
Lean-mass gain → Protein intake (g/kg/day) → Breakpoint ~1.62 g/kg 0.81.62.2 Athletic ceiling ~2.2
Muscle gains climb with protein up to about 1.6 g/kg/day, then flatten. Beyond that you're paying for protein you don't build with (athletic ceiling ~2.2).[1]
Weight & satietyWell supported

Higher protein helps you feel fuller on fewer calories and, critically, preserves lean muscle while you lose fat, which protects your metabolic rate. It's the macronutrient that makes a calorie deficit livable.

Ageing & sarcopeniaStrong

From middle age, muscle is "use it and feed it or lose it." Higher protein (~1.0–1.2 g/kg and up) plus resistance training is one of the best-evidenced defences against age-related muscle loss.

Layer 3, Debates & myth-busting

The myths worth burying

Tap to expand.

The stubbornest myth, and the evidence is firmly against it in healthy people. Devries et al. (Journal of Nutrition, 2018) meta-analysed 28 studies (including people with obesity, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, but not existing kidney disease) and found higher-protein diets had no adverse effect on kidney function (GFR).[2] The myth comes from a 1982 hyperfiltration hypothesis over-extrapolated from people who already had kidney disease. Protein restriction matters in established chronic kidney disease, not as a precaution for healthy people.

Also reversed. The old "acid-ash" idea held that protein acidifies the blood and pulls calcium from bone. Fenton et al. (2009) showed higher acid excretion raised urinary calcium but had no effect on calcium balance, no net loss from bone. The National Osteoporosis Foundation meta-analysis (Shams-White et al., 2017) found protein neutral to beneficial for bone.[3][4]

The hypothesis, Simpson & Raubenheimer

Humans prioritise hitting a protein target, so when the diet is protein-dilute (as ultra-processed food tends to be), we keep eating, and overshoot total calories, until we get enough protein. (Obesity Reviews 2005; updated Obesity 2019.)[5]

Why it matters

If true, protein-adequate meals aren't just for gym-goers; they're a lever against overeating in general. Contested but influential, and it dovetails with the ultra-processed-food debate.

Infographic 3, the protein leverage loop
Protein-dilute diet(ultra-processed) Keep eating to hitthe protein target Overshoot totalcalories Protein leverage, Simpson & Raubenheimer Protein-adequate meals break the loop.
The theory: when food is protein-poor, you overeat everything else chasing your protein target, so protein-adequate meals may curb total intake.[5]
Layer 4, What's misunderstood

Myth vs what the science says

Myth

"More protein always means more muscle."

What the science says

~1.6 g/kg captures the benefit; up to ~2.2 g/kg is a defensible athletic ceiling. Beyond that, no extra muscle.[1]

Myth

"All protein is equal."

What the science says

DIAAS ranks quality: whey ~1.09, milk ~1.14, egg ~1.13 (excellent); soy ~0.90, pea ~0.82 (good); wheat ~0.40, rice ~0.37 (lysine-limited). Plants combine to close the gap.[6]

Myth

"Timing is everything, the anabolic window."

What the science says

Hitting your daily total matters most; even distribution is a useful optimisation, not make-or-break.

Infographic 4, protein quality (DIAAS)
MilkEggWheySoyPeaWheatRice 1.14 1.13 1.09 0.90 0.82 0.40 0.37 ■ Excellent (≥1.0)■ Good■ Lysine-limited
DIAAS scores animal proteins highest, but plant proteins combine to raise blended quality, so a varied plant-forward diet can still hit the mark.[6]
Layer 5, Is it for me?

Who it suits

High protein suits almost everyone: people losing weight (satiety plus muscle retention), athletes, and especially older adults. The one genuine caution is pre-existing chronic kidney disease, where protein targets should be set medically. For healthy kidneys and bones, the "too much protein is dangerous" worry isn't supported.

Referral gate: General information, not personal advice. If you have kidney disease or a medical condition, set protein targets with your GP or an Accredited Practising Dietitian.

Australian context

Most Australians already meet the protein RDI, so the opportunity is quality and distribution, plus higher targets for older adults and those building or protecting muscle. Dietitians Australia emphasises lean and plant proteins.

How THR1VE fits

Hit your protein target without another shake

This is where the numbers do the work. THR1VE builds high-protein meals with the grams shown per serve, real food, portioned, delivered fresh, so hitting your target doesn't mean cooking chicken breast for the fifth night running. Top up with THR1VE protein powder when you need to.

"High in protein" is a permitted nutrition content claim at ≥10g protein per serve, used only where the meal qualifies. Where a meal passes the NPSC, a pre-approved general-level health claim linking protein to muscle maintenance/satiety may apply. We don't claim weight loss from the meal itself.

Frequently asked questions

For muscle, aiming toward ~1.6 g/kg/day captures the benefit.[1]

Not in healthy people, the evidence is clear. Existing kidney disease is the exception.[2]

No, it's neutral to beneficial.[3][4]

Individually lower quality (DIAAS), but combinable to close the gap.[6]

Total daily intake matters most; spreading it across meals is a useful bonus.

References

= strong primary source.

  1. 1 Morton RW, Schoenfeld BJ, Phillips SM et al. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:376–384. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28698222
  2. 2 Devries MC et al. J Nutr 2018;148:1760–1775. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30383278
  3. 3 Shams-White MM et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2017;105:1528–1543 (protein & bone; NOF meta-analysis).
  4. 4 Fenton TR et al. J Bone Miner Res 2009;24:1835–1840 (acid-ash hypothesis debunked).
  5. 5 Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D. Obesity Reviews 2005;6:133–142; Obesity 2019;27:1225–1238 (protein leverage).
  6. 6Mathai JK, Liu Y, Stein HH. Br J Nutr 2017;117:490–499; Herreman L et al. Food Sci Nutr 2020;8:5379–5391 (DIAAS).