(oops, sorry, was replying to Teaser)

For the Bellevue trial, it was a big deal because it was believed that it would cause disease (scurvy specifically) in all humans. It didn't. The point is it's one extreme end of protein intake to show excess is not a valid concern a priori. But as you pointed out for your personal experience, it's not static, it can be adjusted to fit specific situations.

In my case, I didn't see a problem for ketones, they always tested +++ in spite of eating only meat during that period. But now, it's a different story. I don't know what ketones look like now for me, but I'm sure they're barely detectable because of the other parameters - insulin, BG, BP, HR, etc - when I apply my paradigm.

On a different tangent, the article is about protein RDA too low for the elderly. I'll argue that protein isn't the problem here. It's fat and carbs. When we're talking about the elderly, we're talking cheapest yet conforming to official guidelines because of tendency to put old people in group homes. So basically, it's all wheat and sugar, the cheapest possible forms of "food" these institutions can buy.

The above relates to protein through ketones and chaperone-mediated autophagy. It's not that they don't eat enough protein, it's that they waste too much through lack of proper recycling. It doesn't stop there, it's also through lack of proper regeneration (done through growth and protein synthesis) from hyperglycemia inhibiting growth hormone.

In line with the above, a solution to the protein problem is to go low-carb, even if protein intake stays the same. For the rest of us, this means it gives us a wider margin for protein intake to manage things like insulin and ketones for example. So I guess I agree with your disagreement, but I contend my point still stands as a solid baseline.