The case in front of me: ecnoglutide · ESSENCE.
The figures are clear enough; the question is what they mean and what they do not.
I can supply the numbers if the specifics change the answer.
How should I read this, and where are the traps?
Start with the arithmetic, because the answer to the practical question is usually a number and the number is usually achievable.
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.
| Body mass | 1.2 g/kg | 1.6 g/kg | 2.0 g/kg | Per meal at 1.6 (÷3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62 kg | 74 g | 99 g | 124 g | 33 g |
| 74 kg | 89 g | 118 g | 148 g | 39 g |
| 88 kg | 106 g | 141 g | 176 g | 47 g |
| 103 kg | 124 g | 165 g | 206 g | 55 g |
| 124 kg | 149 g | 198 g | 248 g | 66 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.
Mechanically, 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 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].
The limitation of the arithmetic is that it assumes intake is being measured accurately, and self-reported intake is systematically underestimated by a substantial margin.
The plateau is arithmetic. Treat it as arithmetic and the response follows.
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 sampleFounded 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 BiochemThe mechanism is worth having straight, because it predicts which interventions can work and which cannot.
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.
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.
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.
Train, eat the protein, measure something functional, and give the trend three months before you interpret it.
edited 28 Mar 2026 by gunnar_isaksen — fixed an arithmetic slip in the third paragraph
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 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.
It helps to be literal here: 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.
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.
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.
Measure strength as well as mass. It is cheaper, it is less noisy, and it is closer to what you actually care about.
Mechanically, 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.
A maintenance plan written before you need it is worth more than a better loss plan.
The part that matters: 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.
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 STEP 1 extension reported substantial regain in the year after treatment withdrawal, with weight and cardiometabolic variables trending back toward baseline[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.
Two resistance sessions a week and a protein target you actually hit will do more than any refinement beyond them.
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.