rachel_ABQ said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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 figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
One thing that is still open after rachel_ABQ’s answer:
What fraction of loss being lean mass is actually normal, because the numbers quoted here range from 10% to 40% and cannot all be right?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsTirzTom said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Pushing back on TirzTom here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Second scan under matched conditions, six months apart, same time of day: the lean number came back nearly a kilo higher than the panic scan. Strength was up throughout.