it really depends on the athlete - for an endurance athlete in particular, you don't need a crazy amount of protein. Dancers/gymnasts too or really any sport more reliant on cardiovascular endurance or coordination than maximal strength or power.

bodybuilders/powerlifters are on the far other end of that spectrum, they probably have the highest demand for protein intake out of any athlete. The general consensus is the muscle-building benefits of more protein flatten out around 0.8g protein per 1lb body weight. so about 120g of protein for someone who weighs 150lb. You can definitely eat more or less without issue, that's just roughly the threshold where more protein doesn't seem to help you athletically.

The nutritional guidelines under RFK's administration were changed to recommend 1.2-1.6g protein/lb of body weight for EVERY American, which is fucking ridiculous. It is fine to eat the high end of that range, but you have to be very careful to get enough carbs and fats without introducing too much caloric surplus. There is a valid argument that protein tends to keep you satiated longer and eating a lot of it might be good if you're looking to lose weight. I don't think it's a great idea for everyone though, and most Americans get enough protein for their basic needs anyhow.

but you know what's even better at keeping you satiated that most Americans are actually super deficient in? that's right fuckin FIBER baby. Protein is just in fashion right now, especially among conservatives, many of whom are meeting this through red meat probably because they think lentils are icky and woke. and we're god awful at health education so various nutrients get touted as THE THING YOUR BODY DESPERATELY CRAVES or THE THING THAT IS LITERALLY KILLING YOU on a rotating basis. e.g. electrolytes, carbs respectively.

(I can get more specific academic references for the earlier points, but I encountered much of it in Eric Helms' The Muscle and Strength Pyramid books, which line up with opinions of other credible trainers I've encountered. those books are also just a great read on this topic)

Oh, I have another much much shorter video that summarises a meta analysis that backs this up. It says that more proteins may actually even lead to marginally reduced muscle gains. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1bx0GMofYw&pp=ugUEEgJlbg%3D%3D

I reread this and your interpretation seems pretty off the mark. Of course you're going to get more endurance performance from a higher carb diet, carbs are what give you raw energy. Anyone who's ever done an endurance sport like long distance running knows they load you up on pasta for a reason.

Endurance performance is absolutely not the same as athletic performance, which is far more general. There's no way high protein diets aren't beneficial to people who need more raw strength than endurance. This meta analysis does not back up your comment.

It really depends. If you're actively working out, you need more protein than most people eat in a day. It doesn't have to be from meat obviously, but I need to target around 140g and I was no where near that until I changed my diet. There's plenty of science behind protein ratios for active people without dipping into right wing grifters.

The shake is pretty much a necessity for me since I'm also trying to lose weight. If it weren't the shake it'd be chicken or fish but that's a lot of extra cooking.