Could reta be lowering how well nutrients are absorbed?

[Dardarbinks]

Hey everyone!!

Since January I've dropped 9lbs of muscle. The odd part is that at the end of January I wrapped up a pretty harsh cut, then raised my calories by 800 and cut cardio back by an hour (right now I'm at 1.5-2hours/week). The one thing that changed was adding reta at 2mg/week. I can't work out why I'd lose muscle when I'm lifting 5-6 days a week and keeping my diet clean. My body fat climbed from 10% to 14%, so why would muscle drop that much?

Has anyone come across studies showing reta reduces nutrient absorption?

 

[woundcarping]

Yes, absorption may be affected.

To begin with, I need details about your measurements—what method are you using to track muscle loss?

Not all lean mass is muscle.

At what point did weight loss begin, and what were your initial versus present measurements?

 

[Dardarbinks]

I got a DEXA scan done. I'm female.

My cut wrapped up in January - at that point I was 136lbs and 10% BF

Over the following 6 months I added 800 cals and cut cardio down from 3 to 1.5/2 hours. Just had another dexa scan and it showed 14%BF, weight slightly lower (133), yet the loss appears to be entirely muscle. I'm completely baffled by this!

 

[woundcarping]

Dardarbinks said:

I got a DEXA scan done. I'm female.

My cut wrapped up in January - at that point I was 136lbs and 10% BF

Over the following 6 months I added 800 cals and cut cardio down from 3 to 1.5/2 hours. Just had another dexa scan and it showed 14%BF, weight slightly lower (133), yet the loss appears to be entirely muscle. I'm completely baffled by this!

Lifting is what triggers muscle growth; cardio doesn't send that signal.

DEXA data often comes with accuracy problems that are irritating, and they make it even more irritating to interpret smaller relative gaps. My 5th DEXA is in a couple weeks; the first one was at the start of January.

After going back and rereading, I want to confirm the timeline: following your cut, you raised calories, lowered cardio, and began Reta?

For a female, being at 10% or even 14% BF is extremely lean—far leaner than what is usually considered healthy.

Could you share the pertinent sections of your DEXA results from back then and from now?

 

[5byfive]

Something people rarely bring up with DEXA scans is that machines vary, and so does their quality. To start with, was the scan done at one location? Results can differ from one machine to another. And then, which model was it? A lot of female wellness clinics rely on machines that are really Bobo. My own scans are usually done on a GE machine at a local college. Those are great. I had one done at a wellness clinic and it was horrible. The results made no sense; looking in the mirror, you can say 'no way am I at that BF'. That one was a Hologic machine. The next DEXA at the college matched earlier results and matched what looking in the mirror suggested.

Also, I'm very suspicious of the 10% bodyfat number. As @woundcarping said, 14% is extremely lean for a woman. 10% is almost dead. I'm not saying that as a joke. You would feel horrible and your body would be shutting things down and going into survival mode.

 

[woundcarping]

5byfive said:

Something people rarely bring up with DEXA scans is that machines vary, and so does their quality. To start with, was the scan done at one location? Results can differ from one machine to another. And then, which model was it? A lot of female wellness clinics rely on machines that are really Bobo. My own scans are usually done on a GE machine at a local college. Those are great. I had one done at a wellness clinic and it was horrible. The results made no sense; looking in the mirror, you can say 'no way am I at that BF'. That one was a Hologic machine. The next DEXA at the college matched earlier results and matched what looking in the mirror suggested.

Also, I'm very suspicious of the 10% bodyfat number. As @woundcarping said, 14% is extremely lean for a woman. 10% is almost dead. I'm not saying that as a joke. You would feel horrible and your body would be shutting things down and going into survival mode.

Getting my Hologic scan means a 1-hour drive to T town, and it costs $200 every time. Because of what you said, I'm now considering having a scan done elsewhere for SAG.

At least the tech and the machine are consistent every visit.

 

[Dardarbinks]

5byfive said:

Something people rarely bring up with DEXA scans is that machines vary, and so does their quality. To start with, was the scan done at one location? Results can differ from one machine to another. And then, which model was it? A lot of female wellness clinics rely on machines that are really Bobo. My own scans are usually done on a GE machine at a local college. Those are great. I had one done at a wellness clinic and it was horrible. The results made no sense; looking in the mirror, you can say 'no way am I at that BF'. That one was a Hologic machine. The next DEXA at the college matched earlier results and matched what looking in the mirror suggested.

Also, I'm very suspicious of the 10% bodyfat number. As @woundcarping said, 14% is extremely lean for a woman. 10% is almost dead. I'm not saying that as a joke. You would feel horrible and your body would be shutting things down and going into survival mode.

woundcarping said:

Dardarbinks said:

I got a DEXA scan done. I'm female.

My cut wrapped up in January - at that point I was 136lbs and 10% BF

Over the following 6 months I added 800 cals and cut cardio down from 3 to 1.5/2 hours. Just had another dexa scan and it showed 14%BF, weight slightly lower (133), yet the loss appears to be entirely muscle. I'm completely baffled by this!

Lifting is what triggers muscle growth; cardio doesn't send that signal.

DEXA data often comes with accuracy problems that are irritating, and they make it even more irritating to interpret smaller relative gaps. My 5th DEXA is in a couple weeks; the first one was at the start of January.

After going back and rereading, I want to confirm the timeline: following your cut, you raised calories, lowered cardio, and began Reta?

For a female, being at 10% or even 14% BF is extremely lean—far leaner than what is usually considered healthy.

Could you share the pertinent sections of your DEXA results from back then and from now?

Every scan I did was at the same facility! A Hologic machine, if I remember right.

I've attached the side-by-side results from each dexa I had. Sure, 10% is on the low end, but that's roughly what you see at competition level. I was extremely lean and honestly felt awful haha