Is resistance training six times a week enough at 800 kcal a day?

The specifics, since they change the answer: six · 800 kcal.

I am at the decision point and I would rather think it through than improvise.

I would rather spend money on measurement than on redundancy.

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

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.

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.

Mechanically, 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 STEP 1 extension reported substantial regain in the year after treatment withdrawal, with weight and cardiometabolic variables trending back toward baseline[1].

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

edited 23 Jan 2026 by syringe_ninety — added the placebo-arm figures

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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

To be exact about it, start with the arithmetic, because the answer to the practical question is usually a number and the number is usually achievable.

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.

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

It helps to be literal here: 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 evidence for a higher protein intake preserving lean mass during an energy deficit is reasonably strong in resistance-trained populations and weaker in sedentary ones, with the meta-analytic estimates supporting intakes in the region of 1.6 g/kg over lower intakes when training is present[1].

Measure strength as well as mass. It is cheaper, it is less noisy, and it is closer to what you actually care about.