Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.
Dr.DermMIA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.DermMIA said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Coming at Dr.DermMIA’s question from a different direction. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Following on from Dr.DermMIA — and this may be the naive question:
Whether resistance training and protein change the ratio or only the absolute amount?