HealthEcon_DC said:Distribution matters less than total but it is not nothing.
DEXA scan update relevant to protein intake:
Scanned at months 0, 6, and 12. Here are the body comp numbers:
| Baseline | Month 6 | Month 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total mass | 261 lbs | 226 lbs | 208 lbs |
| Fat mass | 111 lbs | 81 lbs | 43 lbs |
| Lean mass | 149 lbs | 148 lbs | 155 lbs |
| Body fat % | 38% | 34% | 22% |
Lean mass preserved — actually GAINED 1-2 lbs thanks to progressive overload + 1.5g/kg protein. The protein intake discussion needs to include body comp data, not just scale weight.
Following on from pete_nash — and this may be the naive question:
How people are hitting a protein target on a genuinely suppressed appetite, because volume is the binding constraint rather than willingness?
bri_stats said:DEXA scan update relevant to protein intake: Scanned at months 0, 6, and 12.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClosing the loop on my own question.
Reporting back — setting the target on reference weight rather than current weight turned an impossible number into a boring one.
Dr.DermMIA said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
Agreed on the target, with the caveat that reference weight and current weight are different numbers. Using current weight at the start of a large loss produces a target that is both unachievable and unnecessary.