This gets cited here weekly, usually second-hand, so it is worth setting out what it does and does not establish.
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.
Where I think it is weakest: the subgroup findings are the part I trust least — with enough subgroups something is always significant, and these were not all pre-registered.
What I am after is whether resistance training and protein change the ratio or only the absolute amount. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
MikeFit_NJ said: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…
No disagreement with MikeFit_NJ. One condition attached. 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.
MikeFit_NJ said: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…
I read this differently from MikeFit_NJ, on substance rather than tone. 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.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThis one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. 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.
VendorMark said:There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see.
True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of people never reach the dose the headline number came from.