🍪 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 CompositionCreatine loading vs maintenance on GLP-1 — my results so far

Creatine loading vs maintenance on GLP-1 — my results so far

DerekSJ_a1c Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:47 AM 45 replies 2,756 viewsPage 1 of 9
This thread is more than 23 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
DerekSJ_a1c
Member
378
1,678
Aug 2024
San Jose, CA
Jul 9, 2024 at 7:47 AM#1

This gets cited here weekly, usually second-hand, so it is worth setting out what it does and does not establish.

STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt. Participants who continued kept losing; participants switched to placebo regained about two thirds of what they had lost within a year, and the metabolic improvements faded with the weight. That is the same pattern as every other chronic-disease medication ever withdrawn, and it is an argument about the condition rather than about the drug.

Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.

What I am after is whether there is a lowest maintenance dose with actual maintenance data behind it, or whether everything published sits at the top of the ladder. Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.

Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
23 18adam_van, Dr.SurgeonPGH, rachel_ABQ and 20 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.GutHealth
Senior Member
1,456
7,890
Mar 2024
Minnesota
Jul 9, 2024 at 8:07 AM#2
DerekSJ_a1c said:
STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt.

No disagreement with DerekSJ_a1c. One condition attached. One third of STEP 4 participants held most of their loss without the drug, and nobody has convincingly characterised who they are. That subgroup is the most interesting unanswered question in the field and it is routinely flattened into the two-thirds headline.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2024 at 1:07 PM
22 17tyler_CSCS, VanRx_Mike, steve_okc and 19 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
TirzTom
Senior Member
2,789
9,876
Feb 2024
Florida
Online
Jul 9, 2024 at 8:27 AM#3
DerekSJ_a1c said:
STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt.

The regain framing needs pushing back on. Two thirds regained means one third did not, and the trial provided no ongoing support to either group. Treating regain as pharmacologically inevitable is as unsupported as treating maintenance as automatic.

21 16Dr.EndoIndy, tom_AK, josh_phd_bmore and 18 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
hans_munich
Member
534
2,345
Jul 2024
Munich, DE
Jul 9, 2024 at 8:47 AM#4

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Extending the interval and reducing the dose are pharmacologically different. Reducing the dose lowers the whole exposure curve evenly; extending the interval keeps the peak and drops the trough. Since the appetite effect tracks the trough, interval extension tends to give you good days and bad days rather than a uniformly smaller effect, which most people find harder to live with.

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

20 15tammy_FL, Dr.LipidDallas, alex_tucson and 17 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
DoseLogDan
Member
201
567
Feb 2025
Montana
Jul 9, 2024 at 10:37 AM#5
Dr.GutHealth said:
One third of STEP 4 participants held most of their loss without the drug, and nobody has convincingly characterised who they are.

Right, and protein targets should be set on a reference weight rather than current weight. Setting 1.6 g/kg on a starting weight of 130kg produces a target nobody hits on a suppressed appetite.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2024 at 11:37 AM
19 14carlos_SATX, sophie_paris, mel_PDX and 16 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
1239

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