kate.chem said:

The intervention that works is boring and well evidenced: resistance training two to three times a week at a genuine effort, protein at 1.4 to 2.0…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think this board over-worries about lean mass. Some lean loss is obligatory — you need less muscle to move a smaller body, and preserving mass you no longer need is not a health outcome. The question is whether strength and function held, and mine did.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. For anyone assembling their own picture: Tmax is one to three days, terminal half-life about 165 to 170 hours, steady state at four to five weeks, and subcutaneous bioavailability near 89%. Those four numbers explain most of the questions people ask about timing.

BenResearch_OR said:

I think this board over-worries about lean mass.

Coming at BenResearch_OR’s question from a different direction. The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central. GLP-1 receptor agonism in the arcuate nucleus stimulates POMC neurons and suppresses AgRP/NPY signalling, which is why the effect is appetite and food salience rather than physical fullness. Delayed gastric emptying largely tachyphylaxes over the first months; the appetite effect does not.

One thing that is still open after TirzTom’s answer:

What fraction of loss being lean mass is actually normal, because the numbers quoted here range from 10% to 40% and cannot all be right?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Second scan under matched conditions, six months apart, same time of day: the lean number came back nearly a kilo higher than the panic scan. Strength was up throughout.