Eating enough protein on a suppressed appetite is an arithmetic problem before it is a nutritional one
A survey of what the meta-analyses support, with the populations named.
Lean mass
Page 2 of 4 of this archive, newest first.
Reading the semaglutide composition data without the press release
A substudy powered to describe a mean is not a substudy powered to detect a clinically meaningful individual change.
The one randomised trial that combined an incretin with supervised exercise
The recommendation survives scrutiny. The reasoning offered for it frequently does not.
Why "muscle-sparing" is a marketing term and not a measurement
Grading six widely repeated claims against the studies actually behind them.
The imaging substudy is an afterthought in the protocol and the centrepiece of the debate
The trials measured mass. Nobody measured whether the participants got weaker.
What the older diet-and-exercise trials found in the hip
A plausible mechanism, a measurable change, and no outcome data. This is what an open question looks like.
What the protein literature actually shows, and in whom it was shown
Where the familiar figures come from, what populations they were measured in, and how far the extrapolation reaches.
Sarcopenia is a diagnosis, not a synonym for losing lean mass
A tour of the source literatures, with an assessment of how far each legitimately reaches.
Load, not cardio: the distinction the general advice keeps losing
What was supervised, at what frequency, at what intensity, and for how long.
Bone density during rapid weight loss: what is known, which is less than you would hope
The evidence base is one secondary analysis, several small studies and a large amount of extrapolation from bariatric surgery.
What the older diet-and-exercise trials found in the hip
Weight loss reduces bone mineral density at load-bearing sites. Whether that translates into fractures in this population is unmeasured.
Load, not cardio: the distinction the general advice keeps losing
The recommendation survives scrutiny. The reasoning offered for it frequently does not.
Fat mass fell more than lean mass. That is the finding, and it is not the headline.
The composition data comes from imaging substudies enrolling a few score participants at selected sites. It is the best evidence available and it is thin.
The one-quarter rule, and the paper that took it apart
Grading six widely repeated claims against the studies actually behind them.
The advice is mostly reasonable. The certainty is not earned.
The gap between a defensible recommendation and a confident one is where most of the harm in this subject lives.
Load, not cardio: the distinction the general advice keeps losing
Mass and function are different endpoints and training affects them differently. Most coverage treats them as one.
Why the bone question is harder than the muscle question
Density is a proxy for strength and an imperfect one, particularly when soft-tissue thickness over the measurement site is changing.
A few hundred participants carry the whole body-composition argument
What was pre-specified, what was exploratory, and what was calculated afterwards by people who did not run the trial.
The scale is not the measurement, and neither is the handheld device in the clinic
A body-composition report gives four decimal places and no confidence interval. That is the whole difficulty in one sentence.
The precision question nobody puts to a body-composition report
A body-composition report gives four decimal places and no confidence interval. That is the whole difficulty in one sentence.