🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsExercise & Body CompositionReturn to running after weight loss — gait changes and injury prevention

Return to running after weight loss — gait changes and injury prevention

Dr.SportsMedIN Sat, May 30, 2026 at 5:07 AM 7 replies 368 viewsPage 1 of 2
Dr.SportsMedIN
Senior Member
1,456
6,789
Feb 2024
Indianapolis, IN
May 30, 2026 at 5:07 AM#1

Writing this once so I can stop repeating it across threads. It is about lean-mass preservation, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

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.

The condition it depends on

The condition that a single DEXA is not a measurement, it is one draw from a distribution. Hydration status moves the lean compartment by a kilogram or more between scans, so any comparison of scans done at different times of day or different hydration states is noise.

The practical version

If you are tracking this properly: same scanner, same time of day, same hydration, at least six months apart, and read grip strength or a lift number alongside it. Function is the outcome; the scan is the proxy.

What I am not sure about

What would genuinely help is knowing whether resistance training and protein change the ratio or only the absolute amount. I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.

— Dr.SportsMedIN · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
38 8lucas_SP_BR, lisa_labSD, adam_van and 35 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.NateNeph
VIP Member
2,987
16,234
Dec 2023
Houston, TX
May 30, 2026 at 6:31 AM#2
Dr.SportsMedIN 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 Dr.SportsMedIN, 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.

Last edited: May 30, 2026 at 8:31 AM
37 7NauseaFreeNow, SteveThurs, B12Beth and 34 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.PeteFamMed
Senior Member
2,012
9,234
Jan 2024
Minneapolis, MN
May 30, 2026 at 7:55 AM#3
Dr.SportsMedIN 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.

36 6LindaRN_retired, tommy_boulder, hyun_seoul and 33 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
VanRx_Mike
Member
678
2,890
May 2024
Vancouver, CA
May 30, 2026 at 9:19 AM#4

Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.

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

Last edited: May 30, 2026 at 12:19 PM
35 5Dr.Martinez, mike_mod, SarahChen_PharmD and 32 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
rick_sfbay
Member
289
1,234
Jan 2025
San Francisco, CA
May 30, 2026 at 5:29 PM#5
Dr.NateNeph said:
There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see.

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.

Last edited: May 30, 2026 at 11:29 PM
34 4Dr.BariatricHTX, LindaRN_retired, tommy_boulder and 31 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

Resistance training prevents 73% lean mass loss on semaglutide — RCT review11 replies
DEXA scan longitudinal data — 12 months on GLP-1 + lifting18 replies
Zone 2 cardio + GLP-1: synergistic metabolic benefits — evidence18 replies
Creatine kinase elevations on GLP-1 — exercise-induced or concerning?14 replies
Body recomposition protocol: GLP-1 + progressive overload + high protein8 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register