PeptideSynthNJ said:

On a suppressed appetite the winning strategy is protein density per unit of volume, not per calorie.

PeptideSynthNJ has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why. 0.8 g/kg is the intake at which nitrogen balance is not negative in healthy weight-stable adults — a floor for deficiency prevention, not an optimum, and derived in a population that is not in a deficit. In a substantial energy deficit, protein requirement rises because amino acids are being oxidised for energy and because muscle protein synthesis is blunted. The literature on preserving lean mass during weight loss lands around 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg of reference body weight, which is roughly two to two and a half times the RDA.

PeptideSynthNJ said:

On a suppressed appetite the winning strategy is protein density per unit of volume, not per calorie.

I will push back on the powder-first advice. It works and it also trains people out of eating food, and when the drug stops the habits are what remain. Getting protein from meals is slower and holds up better afterwards.

Short answer first, then the reasoning. Distribution matters less than total but it is not nothing. Roughly 25 to 40g per sitting with enough leucine to trigger synthesis, three or four times a day, is more effective than the same total in one enormous evening meal — and on a suppressed appetite the enormous evening meal is the one you will not finish anyway.

PeptideChemSF said:

The RDA is the wrong reference and it is worth understanding why.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.