lucas_SP_BR said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
SleepDoc_PDX said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsSleepDoc_PDX said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Coming at SleepDoc_PDX’s question from a different direction. 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.
Worth separating that from lean-mass preservation, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Second scan under matched conditions came back with the lean number nearly a kilogram higher than the first, so a chunk of what I panicked about was hydration. Strength numbers were up throughout.