[Discussion] the lean mass advice in here is 3 years out of date
the lean mass advice in here is 3 years out of date. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
3 years. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
Three scans over eighteen months, same machine, same conditions. Only the third one made the first two interpretable.
What the evidence actually supports, stripped of the arguing.
Some lean mass is lost in any weight-loss deficit. Resistance training and adequate protein intake are the two interventions with real support for limiting the proportion. Nearly everything else discussed on this board is a rounding error on those two.
The complication specific to this site is that appetite reduction makes protein intake a logistics problem: you are being asked to eat a fixed amount of something at exactly the point when eating anything is less appealing. That is why the practical threads here are about timing and food choice rather than motivation, and why measuring intake rather than estimating it is the single most common useful correction.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Protein was the whole problem. Appetite dropped and I was eating well under target without noticing for a month.
Strength retention is an imperfect but free longitudinal proxy: it is affected by neural factors and by being in a deficit, so it tracks tissue change loosely rather than exactly.
Fat-free mass index is a ratio of fat-free mass to height squared. It moves when either term does, which makes it awkward to interpret during active weight change.
Right — strength retention is a free proxy and it tracks better than most people expect.
Right — strength retention is a free proxy and it tracks better than most people expect.
Agreed — and same machine, same conditions, or the two scans are not comparable.