Elango · Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care 2010 · narrative review and data re-analysis · n=?

Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.

Cited 108 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review presenting methodological critique and re-analyses without a systematic review protocol

PubMed 19841581 · doi:10.1097/MCO.0b013e328332f9b7 · record verified 2026-08-31

What was done

The authors reviewed methodologies used to determine adult human protein requirements, comparing the traditional nitrogen balance method (which informs Dietary Reference Intake recommendations of 0.66 g/kg/day mean and 0.8 g/kg/day safe intake) against two approaches: a two-phase linear regression re-analysis of existing nitrogen balance data, and experimental measurements using the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique in adult men.

What was found

Re-analysis of existing nitrogen balance studies using two-phase linear regression yielded estimated mean and safe protein requirements of 0.91 and 0.99 g/kg/day, respectively. Measurements using the IAAO technique in adult men determined mean and safe requirements to be 0.93 and 1.2 g/kg/day, representing values 41% and 50% higher than standard Dietary Reference Intake recommendations.

Why it matters

This paper challenges existing dietary guidelines by proposing that standard nitrogen balance methodology underestimates baseline human protein needs.

Limits

The abstract describes a narrative review and does not state the number of studies or participant sample sizes included. The reported IAAO experimental values are limited to adult men, and conclusions rely on the validity of specific kinetic and statistical modeling assumptions.

Cited by