One concrete data point for the thread. If you are tracking this properly: same scanner, same time of day, same hydration, at least six months apart, and read grip strength or a lift number alongside it. Function is the outcome; the scan is the proxy.

Following on from SleepDoc_PDX — and this may be the naive question:

Whether there is a lowest maintenance dose with actual maintenance data behind it, or whether everything published sits at the top of the ladder?

Dr.NateNeph said:

If you are tracking this properly: same scanner, same time of day, same hydration, at least six months apart, and read grip strength or a lift number…

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

Reporting back.

I went to a lower dose rather than a longer interval on the strength of the trough argument in this thread, and the difference in how even it feels is obvious.

NurseAsh_DET said:

There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see.

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.