The evidence

Every number here has a source. Here they are.

Nutrition content is full of confident claims with nothing behind them. So this page shows the working: what we assert, what it rests on, and where the honest answer is still "we do not know."

The evidence

Where these numbers actually come from.

Every target on this site traces to published research, not to gym folklore. Here are the studies doing the work, and what each one is actually claiming — including where the picture is more complicated than a headline.

01

The 30–40% figure

Clinical trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists have found that a large share of total weight lost — commonly cited in the 30–40% range — comes from lean mass rather than fat.

What it actually means: the drug is not catabolic. It doesn't attack muscle. What it does is suppress appetite so effectively that people fall below their protein minimum and lose the glycogen they'd need to train hard. The lean mass loss is a consequence of under-eating, which is why it responds to protein and resistance training.

The honest caveat: some lean-mass loss accompanies any weight loss — roughly 25% is typical even without medication, and part of what a DEXA reads as "lean" is water and glycogen, not contractile tissue. The GLP-1 number is meaningfully elevated, not catastrophic. It's a reason to act, not to panic.
02

The leucine threshold

Muscle protein synthesis runs through the mTORC1 pathway, and leucine is the amino acid that flips the switch. The working target is 2.5–3.0g of leucine per meal — below that, a meal barely registers.

Source: Phillips & van Loon (2011). This is why the site spreads protein across 3–5 feedings instead of chasing a daily total, and why plant-heavy meals get a free-form leucine chaser — plant protein can hit the gram target and still miss the signal.
03

Pre-bed casein

30–40g of slow-digesting protein about 30 minutes before sleep measurably raises overnight muscle protein synthesis, covering the long catabolic window of a night's fast.

Source: Trommelen & van Loon (2016). This is the entire reason the Pre-bed category exists — and why, on a GLP-1, it's the meal most worth defending even when nothing else will go down.
04

The interference effect

High-intensity endurance work activates AMPK, which directly inhibits mTORC1 — the same pathway resistance training uses to build and hold tissue. The two signals fight each other.

Source: Wilson et al. (2012), meta-analysis. This is the mechanism behind "walk, don't sprint." Low-intensity cardio and daily steps don't generate enough localised muscular fatigue to trigger the interference, which makes them the better tool for burning energy while you're trying to keep muscle.
05

Diet breaks

Alternating two weeks of restriction with two weeks at maintenance produced greater fat loss and better retention of fat-free mass than continuous dieting.

Source: the MATADOR study, Byrne et al. (2018). Real evidence, and stronger than I'd have guessed.
But on a GLP-1 this is a clinical conversation. MATADOR studied unmedicated dieters. Eating back to maintenance while on an appetite-suppressing drug may mean adjusting your dose — that's a decision for your prescriber, not a website.
06

Pace, volume, and effort

The settings this site enforces: loss capped at 0.5–1% of body weight per week, training volume cut by roughly 25%, compounds kept at 1–2 reps in reserve, and a final accessory set taken to form fatigue.

Why together: intensity is the signal that muscle is still needed, so load stays heavy. Recovery is what's scarce in a deficit, so volume comes down. But here's the tension — when volume drops, proximity to failure matters MORE, not less, because each remaining set has to carry more stimulus. So effort gets spent where it's cheap: hard on isolation, conservative on the heavy compounds where a technique breakdown costs you a week.
A correction we made. An earlier version of this page said training to failure "spikes cortisol." That overstated it. Acute cortisol rises with any hard set and is transient and normal — the real cost of training to failure in a deficit is systemic recovery debt and technique breakdown under heavy load, not a hormone spike. Stopping at form fatigue is not the same as true muscular failure, and it is not something to be afraid of.
What we left out, on purpose. A lot of physique-world nutrition writing is fluent, confident, and quietly made up. Claims we were offered and declined to publish: that celery burns more calories than it contains (it doesn't — it's simply low-calorie and watery); that chewing hard foods triggers a histamine satiety pathway; that MCTs "bypass the digestive tract" for instant energy; that specific seed oils meaningfully raise testosterone. Each one is repeated constantly and none of it survives contact with the literature. If a rationale here sounds less exciting than what you've read elsewhere, that's the point.
A note on how to read this. Citations are given so you can go and check them, which is the point of citing anything. Individual studies get overturned; effect sizes shrink under replication; none of this is a substitute for a clinician who knows your labs. If something here conflicts with what your care team tells you, they have information this website does not.