A reference post rather than a discussion. Corrections are the point; I would rather this be right than mine. It is about lean-mass preservation, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.
What is actually established
There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see. Weight loss shifts fiber-type distribution toward Type I and improves mitochondrial density and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake per fiber — so the muscle you keep is metabolically better even though there is less of it. That does not make the loss irrelevant, but it explains why function often holds up better than the number suggests.
The condition it depends on
Protein targets should be set on a reference weight rather than current weight. Setting 1.6 g/kg on a starting weight of 130kg produces a target nobody hits on a suppressed appetite.
The practical version
If you are tracking this properly: same scanner, same time of day, same hydration, at least six months apart, and read grip strength or a lift number alongside it. Function is the outcome; the scan is the proxy.
What I am not sure about
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: whether resistance training and protein change the ratio or only the absolute amount. Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
steph_laguna said:There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. The intervention that works is boring and well evidenced: resistance training two to three times a week at a genuine effort, protein at 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg of reference body weight, and not making the deficit larger than the training can support. Cardio does not protect lean mass and in a deep deficit competes with recovery.
steph_laguna said:There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see.
Pushing back on steph_laguna here. I think this board over-worries about lean mass. Some lean loss is obligatory — you need less muscle to move a smaller body, and preserving mass you no longer need is not a health outcome. The question is whether strength and function held, and mine did.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAnswering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. The honest range is roughly 20 to 40% of total loss as lean mass without deliberate resistance training, and roughly 10 to 20% with it plus adequate protein. Both numbers need a caveat that matters: "lean mass" on a DEXA is not muscle. It includes water, glycogen and the lean fraction of organs, and glycogen alone carries about three grams of water per gram. A large early lean drop is mostly the glycogen and water going, which is why the first scan flatters and the second is the honest one.
DanielChem_CHI said:The intervention that works is boring and well evidenced: resistance training two to three times a week at a genuine effort, protein at 1.4 to 2.0…
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.