I’m afraid this is because of Attia’s bias. We know he tends to be overly focused on muscle mass even at the cost of longevity and is biased towards high protein intake in part for that reason. Therefore I don’t think you can trust his oppinion on the optimal protein intake for longevity. I certainly don’t agree with him on protein intake.
6 Likes
From what I understand, protein from something like whey may take hours to be fully broken down. Amino acids are utilized for repairs but excess can hang around for longer, since there is no dedicated amino acids storage, until it’s converted in to energy. So if you assume that between digestion and utilization the amino acids can hang around for several hours and add 3-4 feedings, then I would guess it’s chronic for 20 hours a day or so.
The power of anabolic stimulation varies by amino acid composition , the fact that Attia understand very well but chooses to ignore. I think he painted himself in a corner with his previous statements and now products for sale.
3 Likes
I didn’t learn anything new from it, Beth, if that helps.
1 Like
Not specifically, no. But I am also not an expert in that field. And this is part of the problem with this whole “debate”. Could you imagine having a guest on to talk about prostate cancer, but that person isn’t a prostate cancer specialist, isn’t an oncologist, and isn’t even a professor or researcher in cancer at all? It makes no sense.
It’s like treating the entire field of nutrition science and protein research in a disrespectful, amateur way, but assuming that anybody is qualified to talk about it. The whole point of The Drive was to have these field-leading experts and a critical host who would help us to synthesise the information.
So even if Rhonda was 100% correct in everything she said (and I have no way of verifying that), she still isn’t a credible expert on this topic.
Yes, this was the terrible strawman part of the show, when they spent ages simply attacking the definition. End of the day, I reckon you’re probably better off eating some whole food which rich in protein, instead of a protein bar. But I can also believe that the “ultra processed” protein bar isn’t terrible for you like Twinkies or Hot Pockets are.
Well, as mentioned earlier, the where is very important. We want mTOR activation in some places, and perhaps less in others. The problem with that AI answer is that it’s extrapolating from A (mTOR activation is pro-ageing) and B (protein intake activates mTOR) all the way to C (is protein intake pro-ageing?).
And as posted many times before in this thread, you have the inherent trade-off that calorie restriction and protein restriction is generally going to make you lose weight, lose strength, lose bone mass, become sarcopenic etc. To that end, I am not aware that there’s any evidence that those are good anti-aging strategies in humans, because frailty is such a big problem for us.
IMO, as somebody no more qualified than Rhonda, I do favour protein consumption higher than the RDA, but it’s not necessary to go up beyond 2g/kg unless you’re trying to eke out performance gains. And optimal performance is obviously not the same as optimal longevity. I am still young-ish (39), so currently working to improve my strength, muscle mass, keep fat mass under control etc. I am typically getting 1.8g protein per kg of body weight, and I generally increase that a bit if I’m in a catabolic state, recovering from an injury or sickness etc.
3 Likes
Ok, but I for one am not advocating protein restriction. Mainly I’m wondering if high protein intake (vs moderate) might cause or accelerate various disease processes while having minimal real-world additional effect on muscle mass in the presence of adequate training stimulus (volume) and adequate caloric intake. Let’s not forget that carbohydrates have a protein-sparing effect by providing energy and allowing protein to be used for building muscle instead of being broken down for energy.
Thanks to influencers like Attia (who sells protein bars and jerky), are people over-estimating the real-world effect of protein intake while under-appreciating the real-world effect of training volume? It’s easy to slam protein shakes, but a lot harder to actually get into the gym and do the 20 fractional sets per muscle group per week, so there’s a natural bias towards wanting to believe that the protein shakes are doing a lot of the work for you.
5 Likes
Completely agree! Aka, confirmation bias. People want to reinforce their beliefs about easier things which would be eat more protein(bars) but ignore the gym part. That’s human tendency and we all are vulnerable to that trap.
6 Likes
Hi @Beth
Only just listened to this and nothing particularly new, but to answer your question the discussion largely revolved around the point at where the risk of bleeding out weigh the CVT benefits.
The crossover appears to be somewhere between 60 and 65yo depending on the individual but he definitely doesn’t recommend it for over 65’s
Hope that helps.
1 Like
I do agree with this. I reckon a lot of people don’t really appreciate the effect of training volume, and greatly overestimate how hard they actually train. Studies show muscle growth increasing with as many as 30 sets, per muscle, per week. That is REALLY hard work, even if you “only” work to RPE 7. I’ve been into bodybuilding before, hung out at those gyms with the meatheads, and my god they work really hard. Like 2-3 exercises just for triceps, adding drop sets, slow eccentrics etc. And they’ll do that 2-3x per week. But guess what, their arms get massive.
5 Likes
Peter Attia has often talked about the construct he proposes we should use to guide our decisions: 'What do I want to be able to do in my marginal decade?" He guides but does not emphasize how important it is to personalize that goal. One of Attia’s goal, which really stuck in my mind, is “I want to be able to hoist myself out of the pool.” Well! I have never been able to do that, do not aspire to do that, and am happy I can still swim.
My primary goal for my marginal decade is to be able to remain in my house, be a person my children will continue to look forward to spending time with, stay free from pain, and from Alzheimers.
I know something’s gonna end me, of course: probably something related to frailty. So I do both resistance and cardio, most days of the week, occasionally really pushing it but mostly moderately. I guess I would give myself a B+ or A- on most of the lifestyle stuff. As a thin ectomorphic type I know I have to consciously get enough protein and also train.
I think that, in addition to getting clear on your “goals” it is important to factor in your genetics, body type, family history, age, et al to make a personalized plan for protein and everything else. There’s no silver bullet: the best we can do is try to achieve a personalized best balance between anabolic (lots of protein) and catabolic (rapamycin???)
2 Likes
I thought this was a good discussion that addressed Attia’s high protein recommendations, most recently emphasized on his podcast with Rhonda Patrick, and push back by Stu Phillips.
1 Like
I have listened to that podcast and it is an excellent rebuttal to the view of Attia, Rhonda & Co. Also, it’s very interesting the discussion in IGF-1 and protein, with an apparent effect of an increase of protein on IGF-1 not really very significant, I’ll have to extract that from the video.
OK, Gemini3 captured the part on high protein, whereas it didn’t catch the part on IGF-1
The host of the YouTube video, Simon Hill, and his guest, Dr. Matthew Nagra, critically examine the very high-protein narrative advocated by individuals like Peter Attia. They base their critique primarily on meta-analytic evidence regarding muscle growth and strength outcomes.
1. Host’s Stance on the Hi-Protein Narrative of Peter Attia
The video frames Peter Attia’s recommendation as advocating for the consumption of 2 grams of protein per kilogram (g/kg) of body weight or more.
The host and guest challenge this recommendation by citing what they characterize as the established scientific break point for maximizing muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and strength:
- Optimal Intake Range for Gains: Based on meta-analyses (Morton et al. and Tagawa et al.), the point where the curve for muscle and strength gains flattens out—the maximum detectable benefit—is consistently found around 1.5 to 1.6 g/kg of body weight per day.
- Diminishing Returns: The steepest part of the gains curve is achieved at a lower intake, approximately 1.2 g/kg. The difference in gains between 1.2 g/kg and 1.6 g/kg is described as merely “squeezing the last few drops out”.
- The Extreme Recommendation: The guest suggests Attia’s recommendation may stem from selectively interpreting the high-end data points in the Morton meta-analysis, which suggested a potential benefit up to 2.0–2.2 g/kg. However, the guest notes that those higher levels are typically only beneficial in the specific context of a significant calorie deficit (weight loss) to spare muscle mass.
- Expert Rebuke (Dr. Stuart Phillips): The host reads an email from Dr. Stuart Phillips (a co-author on relevant meta-analyses), who takes a strong stance, asserting that it is “ridiculous to be consuming 2.2 g per kilogram or 1 g per pound or more”. Phillips claims there is “no evidence to support this even in energy restricted states and even for muscle”.
- Quantitative Disparity: For a practical example, the host points out that for a 70 kg individual, the evidence-supported range of 1.2–1.6 g/kg translates to 84 to 112 grams of protein per day, which is “substantially less” than a 2 g/kg target.
2. Host’s Report on IGF-1 and Protein Intake
The host and guest do not report on the relationship between IGF-1 and protein intake in the provided YouTube video transcript.
However, given the technical nature of your inquiry regarding biological mechanisms and longevity, the scientific literature provides a detailed framework on this relationship, centering on the activation of the growth hormone/Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 (GH/IGF-1) axis and the mTOR pathway.
1 Like
Are the news about Gemini3 hyped, or maybe my version is not the most evolved one? GPT5 did capture the part on IGF-1
Direct Answer:
In the video, the host explains that higher protein intake does not necessarily mean higher IGF‑1 levels. He emphasizes that while IGF‑1 is often raised as a concern in discussions about protein and longevity, the evidence shows that protein intake within practical ranges (around 1.2 g/kg for most adults) does not drive harmful IGF‑1 elevations, and that the benefits of adequate protein for muscle maintenance outweigh speculative risks youtube.com.
Key Points from the Host
-
IGF‑1 Concerns:
Some commentators argue that eating more protein raises IGF‑1, which could theoretically increase cancer risk or accelerate aging. The host challenges this by pointing out that the data do not support a strong causal link at normal intake levels. -
Protein Thresholds:
- Most muscle and strength benefits plateau around 1.2 g/kg of body weight.
- Claims that 2–2.2 g/kg are required are not well supported by randomized controlled trials and meta‑analyses.
- Beyond ~1.6 g/kg, additional protein provides little added benefit for muscle growth or maintenance.
-
IGF‑1 in Context:
- IGF‑1 levels are influenced by many factors (age, energy balance, exercise, overall diet).
- Protein intake alone, especially from balanced sources, does not push IGF‑1 into harmful ranges.
- The host stresses that resistance training paired with adequate protein is far more important for healthy aging than worrying about IGF‑1 fluctuations.
-
Older Adults & Anabolic Resistance:
- Older adults may need slightly higher protein to overcome anabolic resistance.
- Even in this group, the evidence does not show problematic IGF‑1 elevations from protein intake.
-
Practical Takeaway:
The host concludes that focusing on sufficient protein for muscle health is more defensible than restricting protein out of fear of IGF‑1, especially since the risks are speculative and the benefits of maintaining muscle mass are clear.
Why This Matters
- Muscle preservation is critical for longevity, mobility, and reducing frailty.
- IGF‑1 fears are often overstated; the host argues that the balance of evidence favors adequate protein intake.
- Regulatory defensibility: For professional or clinical contexts, the host’s position aligns with meta‑analytical evidence rather than anecdotal claims.
In summary: The host says that IGF‑1 should not be used as a scare tactic against protein intake. Adequate protein (around 1.2 g/kg, higher for older adults) supports muscle health without driving IGF‑1 into harmful ranges, and resistance training is the real key youtube.com.
Would you like me to prepare a structured sensitivity table showing how IGF‑1 responds to different protein intake ranges (e.g., <1.0 g/kg, 1.2 g/kg, 2.0 g/kg) based on current literature? That would give you a calibration-style view similar to your modulus degradation work.
Sources: youtube.com
1 Like
Dietary protein governs the role of insulin signaling in the postprandial regulation of hepatic mTORC1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.01.679861v1
1 Like
I’m not sure why people dissect influencers claims. Regardless of status and education, anyone who is putting out blogs and videos is an influencer.
Screen that out by adding this to the end of your search prompt to remove some of the bias.
“use only clinical studies published in reputable journals, NO influencers, NO youtube, NO clinics”
Or continue to follow the gods of the internet in agreement or disagreement 
2 Likes
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/harvard-nutritionist-warns-pro-YBMWai95TniR6umNmXaGIQ
A senior nutritionist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital is cautioning that social media influencers are recommending dangerously high protein intake levels that have already resulted in kidney damage among some of his patients.Marc O’Mara, a senior nutritionist in the hospital’s Nutrition and Wellness Service, reports treating clients who consumed up to 200 grams of protein daily based on social media advice—far exceeding the recommended 0.36 to 0.45 grams per pound of body weight. “Your kidneys process all the extra nitrogen from the protein, and when you’re eating 200 grams a day, sometimes they just can’t keep up and they get stressed,” O’Mara told the Harvard Gazette.�The warning comes as protein has become a cultural obsession in 2025. Starbucks launched protein-infused lattes and cold foams in September, offering up to 36 grams per drink. Meanwhile, TikTok videos tagged “200 grams of protein a day” have garnered millions of views, with influencers sharing elaborate meal plans to hit triple-digit protein targets.
A senior nutritionist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital is cautioning that social media influencers are recommending dangerously high protein intake levels that have already resulted in kidney damage among some of his patients.Marc O’Mara, a senior nutritionist in the hospital’s Nutrition and Wellness Service, reports treating clients who consumed up to 200 grams of protein daily based on social media advice—far exceeding the recommended 0.36 to 0.45 grams per pound of body weight. “Your kidneys process all the extra nitrogen from the protein, and when you’re eating 200 grams a day, sometimes they just can’t keep up and they get stressed,” O’Mara told the Harvard Gazette.The warning comes as protein has become a cultural obsession in 2025. Starbucks launched protein-infused lattes and cold foams in September, offering up to 36 grams per drink. Meanwhile, TikTok videos tagged “200 grams of protein a day” have garnered millions of views, with influencers sharing elaborate meal plans to hit triple-digit protein targets.
1 Like
Need to see the scientific evidence that high protein diet damages kidneys in healthy individuals.
2 Likes
Using your prompt in conjunction with the “no influencer, YouTube, clinic BS” prompt we get this.
No kidney harm in healthy individuals in trials up to 2.0g/kg so I asked about trials over 2.0gm/kg and the answer is at the end of the PDF
Have I mentioned I’m really liking Perplexity they have added Kimi K2 Thinking as one of the AI’s it can access and already use Sonar, GPT-5.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro
Need to see the scientific evidence that high prot.pdf (366.9 KB)
2 Likes