PharmacoVig_BOS said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

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.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Worth separating that from lean-mass preservation, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

newstart_MO said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

newstart_MO said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Coming at newstart_MO’s question from a different direction. 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.