Creatine monohydrate + GLP-1 — safety and lean mass preservation data

MikeFit_NJ 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…

MikeFit_NJ has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. 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.

MikeFit_NJ 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 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.

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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.

LabKate said:

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

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Posting only so the count is not one.