PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

Is resistance training three times a week enough at 1,400 kcal a day?

Asked 28 Sept 2024Modified 18 months agoViewed 29k times
18

Stated plainly: three · 1,400 kcal.

I would like to set this up properly once, rather than adjust it repeatedly.

My budget is real but not tight, and my tolerance for uncertainty is low.

What would you do, and what would make you change course?

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
AF
askedayo_fadipe19k2828 Sept 2024
Small correction: the units in the third paragraph should be micrograms, not milligrams. – fib4_reader 5 months ago
Do you have a reference for the last claim? Not disputing it, just want to read it. – RP_C18 7 months ago
add a comment

3 Answers

Sorted by votes
62

The mechanism is worth having straight, because it predicts which interventions can work and which cannot.

DEXA precision is better than people assume for fat mass and worse than people assume for lean mass in a single scan — the least significant change for regional lean mass on a well-maintained scanner is on the order of a few per cent. That means two scans three months apart can differ without anything having happened, and it means a scan sequence needs to be at least three points before a trend is interpretable.

Protein target arithmetic

Body mass1.2 g/kg1.6 g/kg2.0 g/kgPer meal at 1.6 (÷3)
62 kg74 g99 g124 g33 g
74 kg89 g118 g148 g39 g
88 kg106 g141 g176 g47 g
103 kg124 g165 g206 g55 g
124 kg149 g198 g248 g66 g

At roughly 4 kcal per gram, 141 g of protein is about 564 kcal — a substantial fraction of a 900 kcal budget, which is the real constraint.

Specifically, 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.

I would be careful with the supplement literature here; effect sizes are small, the studies are mostly in trained young men, and generalisation to a large deficit is not obviously valid.

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

shareimprove this answerflag
PM
answeredp_mkhize41k13820 Jan 2025
Sponsored

Janoshik Analytical - Independent Third-Party Testing

HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.

Submit a sample
Sponsored — paired listing

GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. - Direct Synthesis

Founded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.

Visit GL Biochem
41

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.

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 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.

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

shareimprove this answerflag
P9
answeredplate_count_9k95k1583 Oct 2024
33

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

edited 11 Nov 2024 by Dr_Priya_Raghunathan — fixed an arithmetic slip in the third paragraph

shareimprove this answerflag
DR
answeredDr_Priya_Raghunathan94k24814 Oct 2024
5I would gently push back on the second point — the evidence there is thinner than stated. – Dr_Tomas_Kral 6 months ago
6Adding for future readers: the certificate should carry the lot number, not just a batch code. – Dr_Ilse_Vandenberg 8 months ago
add a comment

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.