Reta and Muscle vs Fat Loss

G

grandmaincrocs

Explorer
Joined
Feb 10, 2026
Messages
13
Reaction score
8
Location
Montreal Canada
Hi, just to give some background: I've been digging pretty deeply into both clinical trials and more basic academic literature on reta. I have a question about ratios, and I've come across 2 competing theories. On one side, the claim is that when people use reta, they lose a smaller proportion of lean muscle relative to fat than they would with ordinary dieting. On the other side, the claim is that reta doesn't change that ratio at all. I know about the "increased fat oxidation," but some argue that this boost is so small that the fat-to-muscle loss ratio stays the same. I'm asking because I'm considering doing a small body recomp before summer. Thanks. (sorry for bad wording)
 
From what I understand...

The medication simply makes it simpler to manage calories. When you maintain high protein intake and keep up resistance training, all while cutting calories from fats and carbs (the drug assists here by silencing food noise), you give yourself the best shot at preserving muscle mass during a diet.

If you take the drug without training and eat poor, low-protein meals, your body will likely break down muscle along with fat to use as fuel.
 
grandmaincrocs said:

Hi, just to give some background: I've been digging pretty deeply into both clinical trials and more basic academic literature on reta. I have a question about ratios, and I've come across 2 competing theories. On one side, the claim is that when people use reta, they lose a smaller proportion of lean muscle relative to fat than they would with ordinary dieting. On the other side, the claim is that reta doesn't change that ratio at all. I know about the "increased fat oxidation," but some argue that this boost is so small that the fat-to-muscle loss ratio stays the same. I'm asking because I'm considering doing a small body recomp before summer. Thanks. (sorry for bad wording)
Click to expand...
From what I recall reading, among the three, reta showed the smallest percentage of muscle loss
 
Any GLP1 will do this: if you skip training and don't build solid routines while relying on GLP1 support, you'll drop fat along with muscle. Do it properly, though—consume plenty of protein and replace the fat you're shedding with muscle through exercise—and you can stop muscle loss from happening. Best of luck with your journey.
 
Since beginning Reta, getting down the same amount of food I used to eat has become a challenge for me. The result is that my weight is dropping, yet at the same time I keep setting new PRs in the gym and my muscles are visibly getting bigger. Based on what I have personally seen so far, Reta appears to spare muscle. I was sure that by this point I would have stalled out or sacrificed some of my gains while shedding pounds.
 
CNCCurrency said:

grandmaincrocs said:

Hi, just to give some background: I've been digging pretty deeply into both clinical trials and more basic academic literature on reta. I have a question about ratios, and I've come across 2 competing theories. On one side, the claim is that when people use reta, they lose a smaller proportion of lean muscle relative to fat than they would with ordinary dieting. On the other side, the claim is that reta doesn't change that ratio at all. I know about the "increased fat oxidation," but some argue that this boost is so small that the fat-to-muscle loss ratio stays the same. I'm asking because I'm considering doing a small body recomp before summer. Thanks. (sorry for bad wording)
Click to expand...
From what I recall reading, among the three, reta showed the smallest percentage of muscle loss
Click to expand...
After 18 months on tirz, I bought into the reta hype—right up until a study posted on this site showed tirz and Reta were almost the same when it came to muscle / fat loss. That settled it for me: I’m staying on tirz. And from what most people report, tirz is stronger for quieting food noise.
 
grandmaincrocs said:

Hi, just to give some background: I've been digging pretty deeply into both clinical trials and more basic academic literature on reta. I have a question about ratios, and I've come across 2 competing theories. On one side, the claim is that when people use reta, they lose a smaller proportion of lean muscle relative to fat than they would with ordinary dieting. On the other side, the claim is that reta doesn't change that ratio at all. I know about the "increased fat oxidation," but some argue that this boost is so small that the fat-to-muscle loss ratio stays the same. I'm asking because I'm considering doing a small body recomp before summer. Thanks. (sorry for bad wording)
Click to expand...
Began Reta on Jan 7 (2mg, and for the past few weeks I've been trialing 1mg). My DEXA came back in a similar range. That said, several other factors are in play: Tesamorelin at 1mg each night, exercise (even though I've been letting that slide), plus 1g - 1.5g (per lb/bodyweight) of protein every day from red meat, collagen peptides mixed into my coffee, and Kaha whey powder whenever appetite signalling gets too blunted.

As long as you lift weights and keep protein high enough to prevent lean tissue catabolism, you ought to be okay. A GH secretogoblin is also something you could consider, provided there are no contraindications such as pre-cancerous growths, etc.
 
For the sake of holding onto lean mass, my stack includes Reta, TRT, weight training, and HMB-FA. My next weight loss target number is coming up, so I expect to get a second dxa in about 5-6 weeks; comparing it with the initial one should be interesting..
 
From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
 
Dogmandu said:

From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
Click to expand...

That's interesting — I began TRT last month, and my first round of TRT bloodwork is coming mid next month. 2-4 weeks after that, my next DXA scan is due.

Bumping my dose hadn't crossed my mind. Right now it's presumably conservative (40mg 3x weekly, while the script says 100mg 2x weekly), and I'm cutting another 50+lb, so a slight increase could make sense. But I'll keep the dose where it is so my upcoming labs aren't thrown off. If my labs come back clear, I might raise it and then redo labs in roughly another 8 weeks to check how my levels react... I need to look into how much protection or generation that extra bump would actually provide (risk vs reward).

Is there any wisdom from your TRT you'd be up for passing along?
 
woundcarping said:

Dogmandu said:

From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
Click to expand...

That's interesting — I began TRT last month, and my first round of TRT bloodwork is coming mid next month. 2-4 weeks after that, my next DXA scan is due.

Bumping my dose hadn't crossed my mind. Right now it's presumably conservative (40mg 3x weekly, while the script says 100mg 2x weekly), and I'm cutting another 50+lb, so a slight increase could make sense. But I'll keep the dose where it is so my upcoming labs aren't thrown off. If my labs come back clear, I might raise it and then redo labs in roughly another 8 weeks to check how my levels react... I need to look into how much protection or generation that extra bump would actually provide (risk vs reward).

Is there any wisdom from your TRT you'd be up for passing along?
Click to expand...
If you mean you're injecting 1ml of gear dosed at 200mg/ml, then starting at 200mg weekly is on the high side. Test cip clears with a half life around a week, so hold your dose steady for the 4 weeks leading up to blood work, and typically you'd want roughly 11 days between your last injection and the draw to get the clearest picture of your levels. (Or whatever days your Dr. says). Should you be pinning 40mg x3 weekly, make sure your Dr is aware so the bloodwork gets read correctly.

I'm also running reta alongside trt. 60 yo male. 6'0" and right now sitting at my goal weight of 170 with 12% body fat. I hit that goal weight around 8 weeks back, and roughly 6 weeks back I moved over from tirz to reta. My "metabolic reset" cost me a huge amount of muscle. Tirz has pushed my appetite up, but fat is still coming off like a MF. As it stands I'm stepping down from 4mg to 2 mg because my eating can't keep pace with the weight loss. Micro dosing might be next, or I may simply stop. The gym and lifting happen 3-4 days a week, hard tennis happens 3-5 days a week, and some days I do both. Protein is something I just can't get enough of.
 
Two weeks before labs, I won't be taking anything extra beyond my trt.

The 200mg/week figure is just their standard prescription, and I have no issue with keeping that same script going. My plan is to read my own lab results, then lean on the doctor to clarify anything or point out concerns I might have missed.

After spending some time reading up last night, I figure total test and hemocrit will be my main reference points for tweaking the dose, as long as no other warning signs pop up.
 
woundcarping said:

Two weeks before labs, I won't be taking anything extra beyond my trt.

The 200mg/week figure is just their standard prescription, and I have no issue with keeping that same script going. My plan is to read my own lab results, then lean on the doctor to clarify anything or point out concerns I might have missed.

After spending some time reading up last night, I figure total test and hemocrit will be my main reference points for tweaking the dose, as long as no other warning signs pop up.
Click to expand...
Include free testosterone in your panel. That's the form your body can actually utilize.
 
MFGamesta said:

woundcarping said:

Two weeks before labs, I won't be taking anything extra beyond my trt.

The 200mg/week figure is just their standard prescription, and I have no issue with keeping that same script going. My plan is to read my own lab results, then lean on the doctor to clarify anything or point out concerns I might have missed.

After spending some time reading up last night, I figure total test and hemocrit will be my main reference points for tweaking the dose, as long as no other warning signs pop up.
Click to expand...
Include free testosterone in your panel. That's the form your body can actually utilize.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve got a whole bunch of tests lined up, but the key things that’ll determine whether I go up in dose are total test and hematocrit—unless something else shows up as a warning sign.
 
woundcarping said:

Dogmandu said:

From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
Click to expand...

That's interesting — I began TRT last month, and my first round of TRT bloodwork is coming mid next month. 2-4 weeks after that, my next DXA scan is due.

Bumping my dose hadn't crossed my mind. Right now it's presumably conservative (40mg 3x weekly, while the script says 100mg 2x weekly), and I'm cutting another 50+lb, so a slight increase could make sense. But I'll keep the dose where it is so my upcoming labs aren't thrown off. If my labs come back clear, I might raise it and then redo labs in roughly another 8 weeks to check how my levels react... I need to look into how much protection or generation that extra bump would actually provide (risk vs reward).

Is there any wisdom from your TRT you'd be up for passing along?
Click to expand...
A lot of testosterone/men's online health clinics seem to begin patients at 100 mg 2x a week. In my view, that's excessive.

For most men, 200 mg a week on an ongoing basis sits far above normal physiologic levels. Clinics also hand out a low-dose Anastrazole prescription alongside it, fully aware that 200 mg will drive up estradiol (E2).

200 mg is an aggressive 'bro-dose', and clinics have figured out that many young male gym goers want exactly that to maximize muscle. It does work. By adding the Anas to manage high estradiol, they've handled side effect #1. Side effect #2 is elevated DHT and more male pattern hair loss. Side effect #3 is higher hematocrit (thicker blood), which means donating blood a few times a year. On top of that come lipid panel changes and acne.

What you did strikes me as brilliant: 120 mg divided into 3 doses. Dosing that often keeps aromatization to estradiol down. 120 mg sits at the upper end of normal. You'll get plenty of anabolic effects while avoiding most of the sides. I was at 120 like you. I got a bit more aggressive at 140 mg and now I need low-dose Anas. The high E2 drama isn't worth it. At 120, I was putting on muscle just fine.

Just my opinions. Some competitive bodybuilders run cycles of 400 mg. I'm a dude with kids in high school. I don't need more than 120.
 
When using Reta, the proportion of muscle lost compared with fat lost lines up with what you'd see from ordinary dieting. Typically, that split comes out to 75% fat loss and 25% LBM — which covers skeletal muscle, water, bones and organs. During weight loss, this ratio is probably about as favorable as it gets, meaning you stick with a weight training routine and eat enough protein to hold onto lean tissue. If you let those slip, you'll lose more muscle.
 
Dogmandu said:

woundcarping said:

Dogmandu said:

From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
Click to expand...

That's interesting — I began TRT last month, and my first round of TRT bloodwork is coming mid next month. 2-4 weeks after that, my next DXA scan is due.

Bumping my dose hadn't crossed my mind. Right now it's presumably conservative (40mg 3x weekly, while the script says 100mg 2x weekly), and I'm cutting another 50+lb, so a slight increase could make sense. But I'll keep the dose where it is so my upcoming labs aren't thrown off. If my labs come back clear, I might raise it and then redo labs in roughly another 8 weeks to check how my levels react... I need to look into how much protection or generation that extra bump would actually provide (risk vs reward).

Is there any wisdom from your TRT you'd be up for passing along?
Click to expand...
A lot of testosterone/men's online health clinics seem to begin patients at 100 mg 2x a week. In my view, that's excessive.

For most men, 200 mg a week on an ongoing basis sits far above normal physiologic levels. Clinics also hand out a low-dose Anastrazole prescription alongside it, fully aware that 200 mg will drive up estradiol (E2).

200 mg is an aggressive 'bro-dose', and clinics have figured out that many young male gym goers want exactly that to maximize muscle. It does work. By adding the Anas to manage high estradiol, they've handled side effect #1. Side effect #2 is elevated DHT and more male pattern hair loss. Side effect #3 is higher hematocrit (thicker blood), which means donating blood a few times a year. On top of that come lipid panel changes and acne.

What you did strikes me as brilliant: 120 mg divided into 3 doses. Dosing that often keeps aromatization to estradiol down. 120 mg sits at the upper end of normal. You'll get plenty of anabolic effects while avoiding most of the sides. I was at 120 like you. I got a bit more aggressive at 140 mg and now I need low-dose Anas. The high E2 drama isn't worth it. At 120, I was putting on muscle just fine.

Just my opinions. Some competitive bodybuilders run cycles of 400 mg. I'm a dude with kids in high school. I don't need more than 120.
Click to expand...

There are 5 years before my daughter starts high school.

I figured the bump in my dose would probably land at 135mg, possibly 150mg, though I suspected my hemocrit wouldn't allow for that.

On top of that, it feels like the odds of gaining more upside than trouble would improve once my body fat percentage is significantly lower — assuming that even became something I was interested in pursuing.

The good part about 120mg/week is that a 2000mg vial, which you receive every 10 weeks, can last 16 weeks…
 
woundcarping said:

Dogmandu said:

woundcarping said:

Dogmandu said:

From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
Click to expand...

That's interesting — I began TRT last month, and my first round of TRT bloodwork is coming mid next month. 2-4 weeks after that, my next DXA scan is due.

Bumping my dose hadn't crossed my mind. Right now it's presumably conservative (40mg 3x weekly, while the script says 100mg 2x weekly), and I'm cutting another 50+lb, so a slight increase could make sense. But I'll keep the dose where it is so my upcoming labs aren't thrown off. If my labs come back clear, I might raise it and then redo labs in roughly another 8 weeks to check how my levels react... I need to look into how much protection or generation that extra bump would actually provide (risk vs reward).

Is there any wisdom from your TRT you'd be up for passing along?
Click to expand...
A lot of testosterone/men's online health clinics seem to begin patients at 100 mg 2x a week. In my view, that's excessive.

For most men, 200 mg a week on an ongoing basis sits far above normal physiologic levels. Clinics also hand out a low-dose Anastrazole prescription alongside it, fully aware that 200 mg will drive up estradiol (E2).

200 mg is an aggressive 'bro-dose', and clinics have figured out that many young male gym goers want exactly that to maximize muscle. It does work. By adding the Anas to manage high estradiol, they've handled side effect #1. Side effect #2 is elevated DHT and more male pattern hair loss. Side effect #3 is higher hematocrit (thicker blood), which means donating blood a few times a year. On top of that come lipid panel changes and acne.

What you did strikes me as brilliant: 120 mg divided into 3 doses. Dosing that often keeps aromatization to estradiol down. 120 mg sits at the upper end of normal. You'll get plenty of anabolic effects while avoiding most of the sides. I was at 120 like you. I got a bit more aggressive at 140 mg and now I need low-dose Anas. The high E2 drama isn't worth it. At 120, I was putting on muscle just fine.

Just my opinions. Some competitive bodybuilders run cycles of 400 mg. I'm a dude with kids in high school. I don't need more than 120.
Click to expand...

There are 5 years before my daughter starts high school.

I figured the bump in my dose would probably land at 135mg, possibly 150mg, though I suspected my hemocrit wouldn't allow for that.

On top of that, it feels like the odds of gaining more upside than trouble would improve once my body fat percentage is significantly lower — assuming that even became something I was interested in pursuing.

The good part about 120mg/week is that a 2000mg vial, which you receive every 10 weeks, can last 16 weeks…
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. When Reta brings your body fat % down a lot, visceral fat in particular, less of your T gets converted to E2 through aromatization. Anastrozole might not be necessary as a result. With 150, though, you'd probably need therapeutic phlebotomies about twice a year.
 
Dogmandu said:

From what people report anecdotally, Reta tends to preserve muscle somewhat better than the alternatives. Nothing on this has been published in research. My concern about losing muscle was strong enough that I pushed protein higher, raised TRT by 20%, brought in Tesa, and above all, did more weight lifting. The result I'm glad to report is that I've added muscle mass. My hunch is that lifting plus meeting protein goals alone, even without TRT and Tesa, would have let me keep or build some lean mass.
Click to expand...
That matches my own read. From what I picked up listening to others discuss reta, it seemed like one camp treated reta as a slower fat-burning agent, while the other camp got more strength but lost a larger share of muscle. What concerns me is figuring out how I would fare without TRT, since at my age and with the medical situation I currently have, I do not want to interfere with testosterone production that is already pretty solid. Naturally, the approach is gradual, and going straight from nothing to 3 peps plus TRT does not strike me as wise.
 
Back
Top