three years of protein threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of protein threads, summarised so you do not have to read them — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Strength retention is an imperfect but free longitudinal proxy: it is affected by neural factors and by being in a deficit, so it tracks tissue change loosely rather than exactly.
Two scans on the same machine 10 months apart. Lean mass held better than I expected and the lifts told the same story for free.
DEXA has a meaningful coefficient of variation, and it differs between machines and protocols. Comparing scans from different clinics adds a systematic offset that is invisible on the report.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Reduced appetite makes hitting a protein target a logistics problem rather than a motivation problem, which is why the practical advice here is about timing and food choice rather than willpower.
Reminder that nobody here is prescribing training and the sidebar says so.
training volume matters more than training novelty
That is a trial average in a supervised population and you are comparing your own scan to it.
DEXA has a real error margin and people quote it to one decimal
Started weighing protein rather than estimating it. The gap between what I thought and what I ate was embarrassing.
Same DEXA machine both times?
That protein figure is grams per day, not grams per kilogram. Different claim entirely.
Have the lifts held, dropped, or moved around?
Three scans over eighteen months, same machine, same conditions. Only the third one made the first two interpretable.
protein intake gets harder exactly when appetite drops
What is protein intake actually looking like, measured rather than estimated?
Correcting myself upthread: 16 months between scans, not the figure I gave.
Hydration status and fasting state affect the lean mass estimate. Standardising both is the difference between a comparison and a coin toss.
Right — strength retention is a free proxy and it tracks better than most people expect.
Careful, that is a nutrition prescription aimed at another member and this board does not do those.
Small fix — that is fat-free mass, not muscle mass. The scan cannot separate them the way the post assumes.
the appetite effect makes eating enough protein a logistics problem
Correction: those scans are from different machines, and the difference you are describing is within the measurement error.
resistance training first, cardio if there is time left
lean mass loss during weight loss is expected, the question is how much
lean mass loss during weight loss is expected, the question is how much
Disagreeing with this line: rate alone does not preserve lean mass. The training does.
Nothing here is a training or nutrition prescription. Targets and programmes are matters for somebody who knows your history and your training background.
Agreed on the error margin. Quoting a DEXA to one decimal implies a precision the method does not have.
Cosigning that protein gets harder precisely when appetite drops. That is the actual difficulty and it is logistical.
the scale cannot distinguish tissue types and never could
Are you comparing against your own baseline or against a published average?
the scale cannot distinguish tissue types and never could
ahmed_fonseca is right that protein becomes a logistics problem when appetite drops.
a single DEXA is a number, two is a comparison, three is a trend
- 1Nothing here is a training or nutrition prescription. Targets and programmes…7 comments in this branch · started by u/rasmus_kuipers
- 2DEXA has a real error margin and people quote it to one decimal6 comments in this branch · started by u/plain_titration