GLP-1 Drugs Don't Fix Everything

keangkong

GLP-1 Specialist
Member Since
Sep 2, 2024
Posts
1,867
Likes Received
4,931
From
Ryongsong Residence, Pyongyang, North Korea
United-States
Skimmed the full paper and honestly not that surprised, they looked at dual GLP/GIP and triple GLP/GIP/glucagon and still showed lots of reductions in Fat Free Mass (FFM) loss. People who gain weight and get on these peptides can live their same sedentary lifestyle and it is not surprising that we see lots of lean body mass being lost if this lifestyle is maintained. Hopefully this motivates people to increase protein intake and start some resistance training. I attached a screenshot of the paper regarding some unknowns that they have acknowledged in the study.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5614.jpeg
    IMG_5614.jpeg
    230.8 KB · Views: 30
I think the solution to this is pretty simple. People need to lift weights. The problem is that these drugs work so well on sedentary people that they often don’t make lifestyle changes. If the only reason you had muscle mass was because you were carrying around extra weight, of course you are going to lose muscle as you lose weight. If you starve weight off, you will also gain it all back as soon as you start eating again. Probably even more. If exercise is part of your regimen, you will keep it off longer. Even body weight exercises like pushups and body squats are great for building and maintaining muscle.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a direct quote from the full paper regarding FFM.

“In the STEP trials evaluating semaglutide, FFM loss accounted for ∼40% of total weight loss (5, 42). Similarly, the SUSTAIN 8 trial revealed that, after 52 weeks of semaglutide treatment, total fat mass was reduced by 3.4 kg, while total lean mass decreased by 2.3 kg (44). In the SURMOUNT-1 trial, the dual GLP-1/ GIPRA tirzepatide reduced fat mass by 17 kg (33.9%) but also led to a 6-kg (10.9%) reduction in lean body mass(5, 45). Similarly, the GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor triagonist retatrutide demonstrated that approximately 33% of weightloss resulted from FFM reduction in phase II studies (5).”
 
Here’s one showing that diet and exercise can help mitigate the glp-1 weight loss.


Taking a GLP-1 agonist helps you lose weight, which is good for many health markers. But CRF isn’t just about being lighter. It’s about how well your heart, lungs, blood vessels, and muscles can perform.

To improve CRF (not just maintain it) you typically need an aerobic training stimulus (e.g., sustained moderate‐to‐high intensity cardio), plus muscle endurance/ strength work, and good nutrition (protein, micronutrients, recovery). Drug‐induced weight loss alone doesn’t provide that stimulus.

Body builders know this, many are using these drugs to enhance will power during cutting cycles. They stick to the muscle sparing workouts and diet while doing this. I bet you dollars to donuts if they were seeing a higher than normal % of lean mass loss from it they’d ditch the GLP-1 post haste.
 
Here’s a direct quote from the full paper regarding FFM.

“In the STEP trials evaluating semaglutide, FFM loss accounted for ∼40% of total weight loss (5, 42). Similarly, the SUSTAIN 8 trial revealed that, after 52 weeks of semaglutide treatment, total fat mass was reduced by 3.4 kg, while total lean mass decreased by 2.3 kg (44). In the SURMOUNT-1 trial, the dual GLP-1/ GIPRA tirzepatide reduced fat mass by 17 kg (33.9%) but also led to a 6-kg (10.9%) reduction in lean body mass(5, 45). Similarly, the GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor triagonist retatrutide demonstrated that approximately 33% of weightloss resulted from FFM reduction in phase II studies (5).”
Yikes, a 33% loss of FFM on Reta is pretty significant.

It’ll be interesting to see more on this as most people seem to be drawn to reta for its muscle preservation qualities.

Results like these are so important as a reminder that no matter the glp you’re on, none of them prevent lean mass loss so strength training is essential.
 
GLP-1 drugs significantly improve functional capacity, even with no exercise or improvement in cardiovascular fitness. Simply weighing less substantially improves your ability to do normal daily activities, and is especially obvious in things like walking, walking up hills or stairs, and just getting up from a couch or bed. If you are not severely overweight and younger and fitter, then this may be less obvious, but for me the difference in weight from 145kg to 71kg made an enormous difference to my ability to do anything physical.
Now, GLP-1 drugs were not actually responsible for most of that weight loss, but are definitely making a huge difference to my ability to keep the weight off.
While I was losing weight, and still fairly heavy I noticed a huge difference in walking up a steep hill from just 10kg weight loss, from having to stop halfway to breathe to being able to make it to the top, and it was obvious at the time my leg muscles were shrinking. Not to mention every joint in my feet hurt like hell walking at 115 kg, pain was gone by about 85kg.
Generally the loss in muscle mass with weight loss from GLP's is proportional and does not result in lowered physical capacity, but generally improves it , mainly as not as much muscle is required to move the lowered total mass.
I am not suggesting that reasonable or high protein intake, aerobic and resistance training are a bad idea, they will improve health and capability as weight loss occurs, but improvements occur without their benefits, just from weight loss. And the long term benefits of GLP drugs on cardiovascular, kidney disease, diabetes, arthritis, cancer and many other outcomes will still occur without exercise. A fairly large percentage of the population do not succeed in maintaining regular exercise, and I would guess this is more likely in those who might benefit from GLP's. And initiating and maintaining regular exercise is less difficult at lower body weights.
 
I think the solution to this is pretty simple. People need to lift weights. The problem is that these drugs work so well on sedentary people that they often don’t make lifestyle changes. If the only reason you had muscle mass was because you were carrying around extra weight, of course you are going to lose muscle as you lose weight. If you starve weight off, you will also gain it all back as soon as you start eating again. Probably even more. If exercise is part of your regimen, you will keep it off longer. Even body weight exercises like pushups and body squats are great for building and maintaining muscle.
Yeah, this guy lifts!
 
Simply not eating isn't the best sustainable weight loss solution. I didn't think that was surprising information. GLP's should be thought of as tools to help make the changes needed. If all you do is take them to lose weight, then you are stuck taking them forever. If you use them to curb appetite and food noise while becoming more active and eating healthier foods, you can keep it off.

I've used Reta to help lose over 80 lbs, and according to my scans, during the Reta phase of my cut, I actually gained almost 6 lbs of lean muscle mass. So I can confirm that it's not only possible to preserve muscle in a GLP deficit, but also grow it. It just takes work and sustainable changes. I know everyone is different and not everyone can lift 5 days a week, but people have to take a bit more responsibility for their health if they ever want to get off GLP's. Because health doesn't just stop at an injection. Loss of lean muscle mass is a voluntary side effect that can be avoided.

And if someone is content being on them forever, that's cool too. People just need to be honest with themselves about their goals. If they want to just lose weight with the least amount of effort as possible, then they need to accept they are going to either stay on the GLP's, or balloon back up. There is nothing wrong with being content at simply shedding weight regardless of composition. Nor is there anything wrong with continuing a treatment that allows you to live a leaner and happier life. These are amazing treatments, but they aren't magic.
 
I think the solution to this is pretty simple. People need to lift weights. The problem is that these drugs work so well on sedentary people that they often don’t make lifestyle changes. If the only reason you had muscle mass was because you were carrying around extra weight, of course you are going to lose muscle as you lose weight.

Yup, this. To some degree, we should expect to lose muscle as we lose weight, primarily in the legs. (Ever notice how large and strong an obese person’s calves are?) We are shedding our proverbial weight vest.
 
I lost 70 pounds (SW 240ish) on tirz basically sitting on the couch playing video games 🤣 I definitely lost a LOT of muscle mass. But... being 70 pounds lighter running doesn't aggravate my sciatica as bad so I started trail running again. Whether it's weight lifting or cardio, we have to keep active if we want to stay healthy. And no amount of glucagon receptor agonism is going to preserve muscle mass when you're losing a quarter to half your total body weight.
 
The muscle bros don’t have to worry about it. They eat/drink 200+ grams of protein and lift daily.
Exactly. Most are losing small amounts of body fat relative to their total mass while already doing what they need to do to preserve and build muscle before they start reta. My issue with them is how they pimp reta out to obese folks like it's some muscle preservation miracle, when it's clearly not. Now reta is an amazing drug, don't get me wrong. But those regular obese people would probably be better served from a price and safety point by starting out with tirzepatide.
 
Exactly. Most are losing small amounts of body fat relative to their total mass while already doing what they need to do to preserve and build muscle before they start reta. My issue with them is how they pimp reta out to obese folks like it's some muscle preservation miracle, when it's clearly not. Now reta is an amazing drug, don't get me wrong. But those regular obese people would probably be better served from a price and safety point by starting out with tirzepatide.
Absolutely agree. The messaging around reta could mislead people into thinking they can take it easy with the strength training as Reta will take care the risks around muscle loss.

Hopefully as the clinical trial results come out and more trials are completed, people will become better informed and therefore better able to decide which glp would work best for them.
 
Exactly. Most are losing small amounts of body fat relative to their total mass while already doing what they need to do to preserve and build muscle before they start reta. My issue with them is how they pimp reta out to obese folks like it's some muscle preservation miracle, when it's clearly not. Now reta is an amazing drug, don't get me wrong. But those regular obese people would probably be better served from a price and safety point by starting out with tirzepatide.
I agree. I originally wanted and got a script for Tirz, but ended up going with Reta because I had already started making the lifestyle changes to be successful on it. I guess you could now consider me a Reta muscle bro since I lift 5 days a week and am highly focused on body recomp with an emphasis on preserving/growing lean mass over just weight loss. That and I'm on a hefty stack that focuses on fitness and metabolic health. I do promote Reta, but am up front with people about what they will need to do in order to get the same results and recommend people start getting serious about fitness/nutrition and talk to their doctors about Tirz before ever considering Reta. The youtube and social media influencers promoting the hell out of it are not doing anyone any favors when it comes to giving people some false idea of a shot that makes you jacked.
 
Skimmed the full paper and honestly not that surprised, they looked at dual GLP/GIP and triple GLP/GIP/glucagon and still showed lots of reductions in Fat Free Mass (FFM) loss. People who gain weight and get on these peptides can live their same sedentary lifestyle and it is not surprising that we see lots of lean body mass being lost if this lifestyle is maintained. Hopefully this motivates people to increase protein intake and start some resistance training. I attached a screenshot of the paper regarding some unknowns that they have acknowledged in the study.
Confession: I lost 15 pounds of muscle while losing 50 pounds on weight on tirz and reta. I believe some of this weight loss was pretty much inevitable; other than quitting my job, hiring a personal trainer, and completely devoting myself to fitness, I was going to lose some muscle. However, I also experienced a great deal of fatigue for the first several months on tirzepatide. Then later when I had more energy, I felt so good about losing weight I didn't feel the need to regain muscle. I also likely didn't eat as much protein as I should have, but I suspect the biggest problem was discontinuing most resistance exercise and not resuming until recently. When I did resume, I swam. That's a good exercise but I needed something better at rebuilding muscle. I should be fine. But it would have been easier if I had focused more on maintaining as much muscle as practical while losing weight. While I did take retatrutide too for much of that time, I did not suffer any illusions that reta was any more likely to protect my muscles than the tirzepatide.
 
I only lost about 6 pounds of muscle, but WOW did I lose a lot of lower body strength. Working on building that back up now.
 
The good news is that even if you lost a lot of muscle while dieting down, getting it back is significantly easier than gaining it the first time.

There's still some debate on all the specific mechanisms around it (Satellite cells being deposited and sticking around being one of the leading theories), but the evidence is pretty conclusive that there's 'muscle memory' and significantly less stimulus and time is necessary to get back to prior levels of musculature than getting to new levels, even after years.
 
The good news is that even if you lost a lot of muscle while dieting down, getting it back is significantly easier than gaining it the first time.

There's still some debate on all the specific mechanisms around it (Satellite cells being deposited and sticking around being one of the leading theories), but the evidence is pretty conclusive that there's 'muscle memory' and significantly less stimulus and time is necessary to get back to prior levels of musculature than getting to new levels, even after years.

I checked out whether the optimistic things you wrote squared with what I could find on Google Scholar. You're right. Sharples, et al. (2023). Skeletal Muscle Memory. J. Physiology - Cell Physiology 324(6), C1274-C1294, https://journals.physiology.org/doi..._content=0131b804-c9c3-4fca-bc54-1db9e51f9fd0.
 
Top Bottom