PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

Is resistance training eight times a week enough at 1,200 kcal a day?

Asked 21 Aug 2025Modified 10 months agoViewed 11k times
17

Numbers first: eight · 1,200 kcal.

I would rather over-plan the first cycle and simplify later.

I am prepared to do the work if someone can tell me which work matters.

How do I make this decision on evidence rather than on feel?

resistance-training
resistance-training

Loaded training as the primary intervention for retaining lean mass in a deficit: minimum effective dose, frequency versus volume, and why…

40 questions
lean-mass
lean-mass

Lean body mass as measured rather than assumed: what DEXA, BIA and air-displacement plethysmography each actually estimate, the body-composition…

164 questions
exercise
exercise

Training during substantial weight loss: cardiorespiratory work, step count, low energy availability, and how exercise interacts with the appetite…

36 questions
shareeditfollowflag
DV
askeddead_volume49k3821 Aug 2025
3Adding for future readers: the certificate should carry the lot number, not just a batch code. – deamidation_watch 7 months ago
add a comment

3 Answers

Accepted answer first, then by votes
18

Accepted answer

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.

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.

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.

The body-composition substudies in the major programmes consistently report that the proportion of weight lost as fat mass is approximately three quarters or better, with the lean-mass fraction falling within the range seen in dietary weight loss of comparable magnitude[1].

A maintenance plan written before you need it is worth more than a better loss plan.

shareimprove this answerflag
TG
answered · acceptedtandem_gradient85k2482 Sept 2025
4The timing signature is the useful part. Everything else is confounded. – mg_per_ml 5 months ago
add a comment
Sponsored

PeptideMeter - Independent Peptide Analytics

Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.

Browse results
7

Start with the arithmetic, because the answer to the practical question is usually a number and the number is usually achievable.

Cardio does not interfere with lean-mass retention at the volumes anyone here is doing; the interference effect in the literature appears at high concurrent volumes in trained athletes. What cardio does at a large deficit is add to the deficit, which is either the point or a problem depending on the objective.

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.

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.

The plateau is arithmetic. Treat it as arithmetic and the response follows.

shareimprove this answerflag
NT
answeredn_takahashi36k3822 Aug 2025
7I tested this on two lots and got the same answer, so at least it reproduces. – v_ramaswamy 4 months ago
8The timing signature is the useful part. Everything else is confounded. – orla_ferriter 6 months ago
add a comment
6

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.

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.

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.

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.

Worth stating that a DEXA sequence is only as good as its protocol consistency, and most people’s sequences are not consistent enough to support the conclusions drawn from them.

Two resistance sessions a week and a protein target you actually hit will do more than any refinement beyond them.

shareimprove this answerflag
CH
answeredcal_hennessy14k2725 Sept 2025

Your answer

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.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.