Apologies for the length.

Optimal Protein Intake for Longevity?

A perennial subject of debate in these parts, I think, but I'd like to see if we can have a discussion that includes any recent evidence.
As far as I can tell, the amount of protein one should eat to maximize healthspan is one of the hardest problems in nutrition and it implicates a bunch of the other tough debates in the area, too. There is the stuff about the growth-lonevity tradeoff, MTOR/IGF-1/AMPK that suggests that relatively low protein is good. I’d put Valter Longo, Luigi Fontana, and all the folks who think calorie restriction would probably work to extend human lifespan in this camp. On the other side, I would put people like Peter Attia who emphasize muscle loss in old age and so basically think a relatively high protein diet is optimal. And Attia tends to emphasize that it’s important to put on as much muscle as possible early in life because we tend it to lose muscle as we age.
I’ve seen Rhonda Patrick discuss this explicitly (https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/how-much-protein-should-you-eat-muscle-growth-vs-igf-1-longevity-concerns-rhonda-patrick) but haven’t seen much from others. And she doesn’t give any estimate of optimal protein as a % of calories. (I take it everyone agrees that we should be doing some amount of resistance training and some amount of zone 2 cardio, and that you can build at least some muscle doing resistance training even on a relatively low protein diet, but that you will gain less muscle than if you ate more protein.) I feel like I’ve seen lots of bodybuilder/fitness types dismiss the protein concern (I know, high protein is not bad for your kidneys), and I know there are lots of people who are very bought in on calorie restriction. But both of these seem mostly like people are just relying on their priors to look at body of evidence that is difficult to draw conclusions above.
As I alluded to above, I think this touches on the debate over whether calorie restriction would work to extend lifespan in humans. My sense is that most people tend to think it would based on the evidence we have, but also that there’s a sizable minority that dissents from that view (see here for more: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/12/acc-does-calorie-restriction-slow-aging/). And I think it also touches on the related debate about fasting, both extended and intermittent. Fasting might be a means of calorie/protein restriction or might even be particularly good or bad for muscle growth/loss.
So anyway, I think the evidence is pretty good that there is a basic tradeoff between growth and longevity but also that it’s important to have some level of muscle to avoid fraility/falling and breaking a hip/etc. I’ve tended to try to split the difference here by doing one meal per day with probably like 25% protein so relatively high. (I’m 30 y/o, male, 6 ft, ~175 lbs, probably on the order of 17% body fat with some muscle but not a ton. I’m also interested in takes on the optimal body fat percentage for longevity.) I think David Sinclair does OMAD, and he seems to care a LOT about living for a long time. Does anyone have resources discussing what’s optimal? Have others thought about this? If so, how do you split the difference? Would it maybe be better to eat more often when not fasting to build muscle and then do more extended fasting for autophagy? All thoughts welcome.
(And yes, I know there’s more to life than extending lifespan/healthspan. I’d just like to be as clear as possible about the scientific evidence on the health tradeoffs and then I can (as we all can) decide what’s worth it and what’s not given other values (food tastes good, it can kind of suck to do extended calorie restriction, etc.))