Recovery optimization on GLP-1 — my results so far

hannah_MT 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…

Agreeing with hannah_MT, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. 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.

hannah_MT 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…

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

This 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.

TirzTom said:

There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.