Understand the source comparison
GLP-1 Muscle Preservation: Treatment Comparison
GLP-1 monotherapy (no intervention) Appetite suppression → caloric deficit 0.8–1.0g/kg (typical intake) None 60–75% Achieves weight loss but loses significant muscle. Metabolic rate drops, rebound risk increases GLP-1 + protein supplementation Appetite suppres
No winner is assigned.
This page preserves a source comparison for education. It does not add a rating, recommendation or clinical judgment.
- GLP-1 monotherapy (no intervention)
- Appetite suppression → caloric deficit
- 0.8–1.0g/kg (typical intake)
- None
- 60–75%
- Achieves weight loss but loses significant muscle. Metabolic rate drops, rebound risk increases
- GLP-1 + protein supplementation
- Appetite suppression + leucine threshold maintenance
- 1.6–2.2g/kg distributed across meals
- 70–80%
- Better than baseline but insufficient. Protein alone doesn't signal muscle retention
- GLP-1 + resistance training
- Appetite suppression + mechanical stimulus for muscle preservation
- 3x/week progressive overload
- 75–85%
- Training signals retention but lacks substrate. MPS still compromised by low protein
- GLP-1 + protein + resistance training
- Appetite suppression + leucine threshold + mechanical stimulus
- 1.6–2.2g/kg + resistance training 3x/week
- 85–95%
- Optimal strategy. Combines substrate availability with functional signal for muscle retention