David Allison

In the case of protein, if we're thinking about it not in an absolute sense, but as a percent of calories, let's just say, and let's assuming your calories are at an appropriate level for whatever it is you want to your life.

What I think we can say with pretty good confidence is there's some level that's too low.

I think we can also say with pretty good confidence that there's some level above the RDA that with very, very rare exceptions perhaps is at most not worse than and in the vast majority of cases likely better than the RDA level.

You might think of it as the real base level like economy rental.

And then there's the higher end good rental.

And then there's something further out there where I would say there's less certainty.

And that's where probably a little more of the debate is.

So there's not no debate between the base level and what I'm saying is closer to the perhaps, I don't want to use the word optimal because that implies a dip.

but superior, known superior level.

Little debate in between, but not so much in my view.

And then there's more debate about beyond the known superior level and a lot of uncertainty there.

I think the evidence is very clear that when you go from the RDA level of 0.4-ish grams per pound or 0.8-ish grams per kilogram up into roughly double or even a little bit more of that, roughly two, I know no evidence of harm

in any group other than perhaps, again, the very rarest folks.

And even that would typically not be protein in general.

It would be specific types.

So if you said to me, phenylketonuric can't have phenylalanine, okay, fine.

Someone who's got allergy to whey protein can't have whey protein, but that doesn't mean protein in general.

I know of no evidence for harm even in people with chronic kidney disease or anything else.

I think there's lots and lots of evidence for benefit in at least medium-term observable phenomena.

like body weight, like appetite control, like bone strength, muscle, and so on, for people to be consuming more.