What the protein literature actually shows, and in whom it was shown
The denominator matters more than the ratio: per kilogram of body weight, of ideal weight, or of lean mass gives three different targets.
Lean mass
Page 3 of 4 of this archive, newest first.
Why the bone question is harder than the muscle question
A plausible mechanism, a measurable change, and no outcome data. This is what an open question looks like.
The one randomised trial that combined an incretin with supervised exercise
One randomised trial has combined a GLP-1 receptor agonist with supervised exercise. Its result is the single most useful piece of evidence in this area.
Why "muscle-sparing" is a marketing term and not a measurement
Grading six widely repeated claims against the studies actually behind them.
Load, not cardio: the distinction the general advice keeps losing
The older-adult diet-and-exercise trials are the closest analogue to rapid pharmacological weight loss, and they are twenty years old.
Eating enough protein on a suppressed appetite is an arithmetic problem before it is a nutritional one
The resistance-training and energy-deficit literature supports a higher protein intake. None of it was conducted in people taking an incretin.
Sarcopenia is a diagnosis, not a synonym for losing lean mass
The rule that a quarter of weight lost is lean tissue has been in textbooks for decades and does not survive close reading.
Sarcopenia is a diagnosis, not a synonym for losing lean mass
The gap between a defensible recommendation and a confident one is where most of the harm in this subject lives.
What we would need to randomise to answer this properly
The older-adult diet-and-exercise trials are the closest analogue to rapid pharmacological weight loss, and they are twenty years old.
The supplement trade found this drug class quickly, and the citations did not improve
A survey of what the meta-analyses support, with the populations named.
Two sessions a week, and the evidence behind the prescription
The recommendation survives scrutiny. The reasoning offered for it frequently does not.
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.
Why "muscle-sparing" is a marketing term and not a measurement
The rule that a quarter of weight lost is lean tissue has been in textbooks for decades and does not survive close reading.
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.
Why the bone question is harder than the muscle question
What the Journal would want measured before treating this as settled in either direction.
The advice is mostly reasonable. The certainty is not earned.
A tour of the source literatures, with an assessment of how far each legitimately reaches.
The substudies, read properly: who was scanned, when, and with what
What was pre-specified, what was exploratory, and what was calculated afterwards by people who did not run the trial.
Bone density during rapid weight loss: what is known, which is less than you would hope
Density is a proxy for strength and an imperfect one, particularly when soft-tissue thickness over the measurement site is changing.
Two sessions a week, and the evidence behind the prescription
The recommendation survives scrutiny. The reasoning offered for it frequently does not.
Lean mass is a compartment, not a tissue
A body-composition report gives four decimal places and no confidence interval. That is the whole difficulty in one sentence.