Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

How much protein do you actually need, and does it matter whether it comes from plants or animals?

What the experts say

Joel H. FuhrmanMD · board-certified family physician, nutrient-density author

About 0.9 g per kg of body weight for a healthy young adult, more for older adults and athletes, and from plants. Counting is unnecessary because a varied plant diet at adequate calories lands there anyway.

What it rests onHe argues the 0.8 g/kg RDA rests on early nitrogen-balance work and that indicator-amino-acid methods put the minimum nearer 0.9 g/kg, publishing a life-stage table (older adults 1.0 to 1.5, athletes 1.2 to 2.1) and putting a typical 1700 to 1800 calorie day of his diet at roughly 60 to 70 g of protein. His objection to going higher is not the protein but the animal foods that usually carry it: IGF-1, arachidonic acid, saturated fat, carnitine and heme iron. He sells a plant protein powder and does not say so in the article.

Source: drfuhrman.com ↗
Peter AttiaMD · longevity physician, founder of Early Medical

1.6 to 2.2 g per kg per day, and plant protein makes the requirement higher rather than lower.

What it rests onHe argues the RDA was derived from nitrogen-balance studies in young, lean, often inactive men and does not account for population variability, older adults' anabolic resistance, pregnancy, childhood, injury recovery or resistance training. On the plant question specifically he writes that plant proteins are absorbed more poorly and stimulate anabolic processes less well, making the RDA insufficient for people relying on them. His own disclosures list an investment in and advisory role at a protein food company, unmentioned in the article.

Source: peterattiamd.com ↗

Overview

The gap is narrowest exactly where the rhetoric is loudest. Fuhrman's athlete band (1.2 to 2.1 g/kg) overlaps Attia's range (1.6 to 2.2), and Attia concedes that plant-based eaters need more than the RDA rather than that they cannot meet requirements.

The real disagreement is about a sedentary adult in midlife, where Fuhrman says 0.9 and Attia says 1.6, and about whether the animal foods that usually deliver the higher number carry a cost of their own. Quoting either man's headline rather than his table manufactures a wider fight than exists.

Where they agree

Both hold that the 0.8 g/kg RDA was derived from too narrow a population to be treated as an optimum, both hold that older adults need more than younger ones, and both hold that protein source affects how much you need.

What would settle it

A trial powered on hard outcomes rather than on nitrogen balance or acute muscle protein synthesis, comparing matched plant and animal protein intakes across the 0.9 to 2.2 g/kg range in ordinary sedentary adults, with body composition, function and IGF-1 all measured. Nothing of that shape exists in either direction, which is why both sides argue from mechanism and cohort data.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.