The specifics, since they change the answer: 62 kg · 1,000 kcal.
I would rather understand the derivation than memorise the outcome.
Two people I asked gave two answers that differ by a factor of ten, which is suggestive.
Can someone show the working rather than just the answer?
Concretely, the commonly quoted figures for lean-mass loss are mostly measurement artefacts, and the artefact is well understood: fat-free mass as measured includes water and glycogen, both of which fall early and neither of which is contractile tissue.
Hydration state moves a DEXA lean-mass figure directly, because the algorithm assigns water to the lean compartment. Scanning fasted, at the same time of day, before training and without a recent high-carbohydrate day is the difference between a comparable sequence and a noisy one. Bioelectrical impedance is far more sensitive to hydration again, which is why its trend is unusable at this timescale.
| Method | Measures | Sensitive to | Least significant change |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEXA | Three-compartment by attenuation | Hydration, positioning | ~2–3 % regional lean |
| BIA (consumer) | Impedance, modelled | Hydration, food, temperature | Not usable at this timescale |
| Air displacement | Two-compartment by density | Lung volume, hair, clothing | ~1–2 % fat mass |
| Tape and scale | Circumference, mass | Technique | Surprisingly usable as a trend |
The minimum effective resistance-training dose in a deficit is lower than most programmes assume. Two sessions a week covering the major movement patterns, with loads taken close to failure, is sufficient to retain most of what would otherwise be lost. Volume beyond that adds recovery cost that a large energy deficit is poorly placed to pay.
Adaptive thermogenesis — a fall in energy expenditure beyond that predicted by the change in body composition — is documented across weight-loss interventions and is the mechanistic basis for the plateau being expected rather than anomalous.
Train, eat the protein, measure something functional, and give the trend three months before you interpret it.
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsMore usefully, the distinction that resolves this is between proportional loss and functional loss. Losing lean mass in proportion to total mass is what happens in every weight loss intervention. Losing function is not, and function is measurable.
Protein target, worked: at 88 kg, a target of 1.6 g/kg is 88 × 1.6 = 141 g per day. Spread across three eating occasions that is roughly 47 g each, and the leucine threshold for a maximal muscle protein synthetic response is met at around 2.5 to 3 g of leucine, which corresponds to roughly 30 to 40 g of a high-quality protein. So three meals at 40 g plus one 25 g snack gets you to 145 g and clears the per-meal threshold each time. On 900 kcal that leaves about 340 kcal for everything else, which is the actual constraint.
Absolute strength holds up better than scale weight during a deficit for a straightforward reason: strength is substantially neural and skill-based, and the contractile tissue you retain is being trained harder relative to its size. Grip strength and repetition maxima are therefore lagging indicators of muscle loss rather than leading ones, which is an argument for measuring both.
The caveat is that population averages tell you about populations. Your own trajectory is a sample of one and should be read as a trend, not as a deviation from a published mean.
Two resistance sessions a week and a protein target you actually hit will do more than any refinement beyond them.
The underlying point is that what the data supports is narrower than what gets recommended, so it is worth separating the two.
Fibre at very low total intake is a trap. Soluble fibre needs water and motility to work; insoluble fibre adds bulk to a slow transit. At 900 kcal a day with delayed gastric emptying, an osmotic agent is more predictable than a bulking one, and adequate fluid is doing more work than either.
The relevant detail is that the regain trajectory after stopping is roughly a mirror of the loss trajectory, and it is not primarily a willpower phenomenon. Appetite signalling returns, energy expenditure remains suppressed relative to the original mass, and the two combine. That is an argument for a maintenance plan existing before the stop, rather than an argument against stopping.
Measure strength as well as mass. It is cheaper, it is less noisy, and it is closer to what you actually care about.
edited 28 Mar 2026 by Dr_Colm_Fitzhenry — fixed an arithmetic slip in the third paragraph
The mechanism is worth having straight, because it predicts which interventions can work and which cannot.
The first four weeks of loss is substantially fluid and glycogen. Each gram of stored glycogen carries roughly three grams of water, and total glycogen is on the order of 400 to 500 g, so the obligatory water shift alone accounts for a couple of kilograms. This is why the first month looks dramatic and the second looks like a plateau when in fact the fat-loss rate has not changed.
SURMOUNT-4 provides the cleanest maintenance-versus-withdrawal contrast available in the class, and it is the reference for any claim about what happens after stopping[1].
The plateau is arithmetic. Treat it as arithmetic and the response follows.
Put another way, a plateau at four to six months is the expected shape of the curve, not a failure of it. Energy expenditure falls with mass, and the deficit closes itself unless intake falls further.
Food noise returning is not obviously tolerance. Receptor desensitisation is one hypothesis; a second is that the initial effect was partly novelty and partly the steep early deficit, and a third is that intake has drifted upward and the signal is being outcompeted rather than weakened. The three make different predictions about what a dose increase would do.
One qualification: none of this is a clinical assessment, and unexplained loss of function rather than of mass is a reason to see someone rather than to adjust a programme.
A maintenance plan written before you need it is worth more than a better loss plan.
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.