Counting rather than debating, for once. The debate can happen underneath.
Two DEXA scans eleven months apart: down 24kg total, of which the scan says 6kg was lean. I want to know whether that ratio is bad, normal, or simply what happens.
The narrow version of the question is 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.
Roughly, people seem to land in one of these:
- Held where they were and waited it out
- Changed one variable and kept everything else fixed
- Changed several things at once and cannot now attribute the result
- Stopped and reassessed from a clean baseline
Say which and say why — the why is the useful half.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. The honest range is roughly 20 to 40% of total loss as lean mass without deliberate resistance training, and roughly 10 to 20% with it plus adequate protein. Both numbers need a caveat that matters: "lean mass" on a DEXA is not muscle. It includes water, glycogen and the lean fraction of organs, and glycogen alone carries about three grams of water per gram. A large early lean drop is mostly the glycogen and water going, which is why the first scan flatters and the second is the honest one.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Dr.ObesityLA said:The honest range is roughly 20 to 40% of total loss as lean mass without deliberate resistance training, and roughly 10 to 20% with it plus adequate…
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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardswanda_boise said:Two DEXA scans eleven months apart: down 24kg total, of which the scan says 6kg was lean.
Can confirm the pattern wanda_boise describes. 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.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly.
wanda_boise said:...the muscle loss concern with lean mass...
This is a legitimate and well-studied concern. Let me put some numbers on it:
In STEP 1, approximately 39% of weight lost was lean mass. However, the Lundgren 2024 study showed that structured resistance training reduced this to ~25% lean mass loss.
Context matters: at BMI 35+, you're carrying excess lean mass to support the extra weight. Losing some lean mass is expected and not inherently harmful if you maintain adequate muscle function through exercise.
The solution isn't avoiding the medication — it's combining it with proper exercise and protein intake.