The 1.6–2.2 g/kg target in a cut
The range itself is easy to memorize: 1.6 to 2.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. The interesting question is which end you belong at — and the answer, for almost anyone running a calorie deficit, is the top. This page walks the dose-response data that set the range, the deficit trials that justify pushing higher, and the plateau that tells you where to stop.
What the evidence supports
- The dose-response for muscle gain plateaus near 1.6 g/kg/day — protein above that adds little for training gains at maintenance.
- In randomized deficits, protein at 1.6–2.4 g/kg/day measurably preserves lean mass where RDA-level diets lose it.
- Leaner and older people, and anyone cutting fast or training heavy, have the strongest reason to sit at the top of the range.
What remains uncertain
- Whether protein beyond roughly 2.2 g/kg adds further protection — the tested doses suggest a flat or very shallow curve.
- Exactly where the optimum sits for individual body types and training volumes; the range is a band, not a point.
- How the bodyweight denominator should be chosen for very overweight people — current, goal, or adjusted weight.
Evidence last reviewed: August 15, 2026. Conclusions may change as new research is published.
the top of the range
Where the Range Comes From
The 1.6 number is not folklore. A large systematic review and meta-regression of 49 randomized trials with 1,863 participants modeled how protein intake maps onto resistance-training gains and found that the curve bends — beyond roughly 1.62 g/kg/day (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.20), additional protein produced little additional muscle (Morton et al., British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018). That analysis describes people trying to add muscle at maintenance energy. It is the load-bearing reference for the lower end of the cut range: 1.6 g/kg is the dose at which the body has essentially everything it can use for building. The range's upper end, 2.2, is a defense allowance added for the specific conditions of a deficit.
It is worth being precise about what the meta-analysis does and does not show. It shows a plateau for muscle gain, which is not the same claim as a plateau for muscle preservation during weight loss. Preservation is the harder task — the body is being asked to hold tissue it is actively instructed to shed — and that difference is why the cut range sits higher than the maintenance number.
Two practical notes on the numbers. First, the meta-analysis's confidence interval is wide — 1.03 to 2.20 g/kg — the statistical way of saying that some people need less and some need more, and the band is a working range, not a courtroom verdict. Second, the range is calculated per kilogram of total body weight, which is why the arithmetic table below matters more than the abstract figure: the same 2.0 g/kg is a very different plate of food at 60 kg than at 100 kg.
Product picks are generic categories, not brands. We may earn a commission on Amazon or iHerb purchases at no cost to you — this never changes our evidence conclusions. Full disclosure
Protein powder
A convenient way to add dietary protein when food intake is insufficient or impractical.
⚠️ May cause digestive symptoms; formulation matters for allergies and intolerances. It does not replace a varied diet.
Check price on Amazon →Why a Deficit Pushes You Up the Range
Think of protein as a substrate budget. At maintenance the budget pays for repairs. In a deficit it must also pay the cost of resisting the catabolic signal described on the first page of this series — and the trials say the higher budget works. A 21-day 40% deficit trial tested protein at 0.8, 1.6, and 2.4 g/kg/day and found the RDA-level group lost significantly more fat-free mass than both higher groups, while 1.6 and 2.4 behaved similarly (Pasiakos et al., 2013). In athletes on a short aggressive cut, 2.3 g/kg preserved lean mass where 1.0 g/kg lost it (Mettler et al., 2010). And with training added, 2.4 g/kg allowed overweight young men to gain lean mass even while losing fat (Longland et al., 2016). The pattern across all three: once you are at or above ~1.6–2.2 in a deficit, you have bought the protection; below it, you are losing tissue you did not need to lose.
The Arithmetic for Your Bodyweight
Once the target is set, the rest is multiplication. The range maps onto body weight as follows — the floor protects against the worst case, the top buys the full defense. Most people cutting should land in the upper half.
| Body weight | 1.6 g/kg floor | 2.2 g/kg top | Where you likely sit | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🥉 60 kg | 96 g | 132 g | Upper half if lean or training | 110–130 g |
| ⚖️ 70 kg | 112 g | 154 g | Upper half if lean or training | 125–155 g |
| 🥩 80 kg | 128 g | 176 g | Typical male cut — aim high | 145–175 g |
| 🏋️ 90 kg | 144 g | 198 g | Closer to goal — sit near the top | 165–195 g |
| 🧱 100 kg | 160 g | 220 g | Heavy cutters — top half protects muscle | 180–220 g |
The denominator question deserves an honest answer: use the body weight you are currently defending — not your goal weight, and not a dream weight from a decade ago. For people carrying a very large fat reserve, some practitioners use an adjusted weight, because fat needs little protein to maintain; the honest move is to compute on current weight and treat the top of the range (closer to 2.2 g/kg on leaner frames) as the safe direction when unsure.
When to Sit at the Top
The range is a tool with a clear instruction: in a cut, drift up. The decision rules are concrete.
- 🏷️ The leaner rule. The less body fat you carry, the less cushion the muscle has and the higher you aim — a lean athlete cutting for a competition sits at the top; a person with a large reserve can start near the bottom and still protect tissue.
- 🧓 The age rule. Older adults show a blunted synthetic response to a given protein dose, so the top of the range is the default, not an option.
- 🏃 The pace rule. The faster you are cutting (toward 1% of body weight per week), the more defense protein supplies because the catabolic pressure is steeper — see the rate discussion for the cap that pairs with this.
- 🏋️ The training rule. Heavy resistance training raises protein needs during a cut; lifters should treat the target as 1.8–2.2, not 1.6.
- 🌱 The plant rule. Gram for gram, plant proteins trigger a smaller synthetic response than animal proteins in acute lab work — largely a function of leucine — so plant-based eaters should aim toward the top of the range (van Vliet et al., 2015).
🥩 The number above 2.2 is not a commission
The honest reading of the data is a plateau, not a ceiling that grows with effort. In Pasiakos's trial, 2.4 g/kg did not protect meaningfully more than 1.6. The extra grams cost calories you might rather spend on food you enjoy — and on a cut, food you enjoy is a retention tool. Treat 2.2 as a stopping point for almost everyone, and spend your remaining effort on the spacing and the training that the next pages cover.
Questions, Answered Briefly
- ⚖️ Current weight or goal weight for the math? Current weight — that is the tissue you are defending. If you are carrying a very large fat reserve and the number feels punishing, compute on current weight but note that the fat fraction needs little maintenance; the top of the range is where the safe margin lives.
- 🥚 Do leftovers and incidental protein count? Yes — the denominator is total daily protein from everything you eat. The meal-plan language in the parent page is a structure to hit a total, not a rule that only framed meals count.
- 🌱 Is the same number right on a plant-based diet? Aim toward the top, and pay attention to leucine — soy and pea can cover it in the right amounts. The practical version is a modestly higher total rather than a different range.
- 📅 Should rest days drop the target? No — during a deficit every day is a protein-defense day, whether or not you trained. The deficit is what makes the requirement, not the session.
- 🧮 What if I keep missing the top? Missing 160 g by ten grams is not failure; missing it by fifty is a different category. The relationship is graded, and the largest share of the protection arrives by simply being above ~1.2–1.4 — the top is insurance, not a cliff.
The Bottom Line
- The range sits on a real dose-response curve — plateaus near ~1.6 g/kg/day for gains, so the cut range extends higher for the harder job of preservation.
- Deficit trials put you at the top — 1.6–2.4 g/kg preserved lean mass where RDA-level intake lost it, across three randomized studies.
- Compute on current weight and drift up — leaner, older, faster-cutting, and plant-based eaters sit at the top; the top beats the floor when unsure.
- Respect the plateau — beyond ~2.2 g/kg the protection flattens; spend the remaining effort on spacing and training, not more grams.
Related Topics
- Morton et al., "A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults," British Journal of Sports Medicine (2018)
- Pasiakos et al., "Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial," The FASEB Journal (2013)
- Mettler, Mitchell, & Tipton, "Increased protein intake reduces lean body mass loss during weight loss in athletes," Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2010)
- Longland et al., "Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2016)
- van Vliet et al., "The skeletal muscle anabolic response to plant- versus animal-based protein consumption," The Journal of Nutrition (2015)