One thing that is still open after NurseLeah_Nash’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?
One thing that is still open after NurseLeah_Nash’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?
wendy_avl 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…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
wendy_avl 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…
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultswendy_avl 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…
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.