Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
BariatricNurseD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
BariatricNurseD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAdding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Following on from BariatricNurseD — and this may be the naive question:
Whether resistance training and protein change the ratio or only the absolute amount?