🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsExercise & Body CompositionCreatine kinase elevations on GLP-1 — exercise-induced or concerning?

Creatine kinase elevations on GLP-1 — exercise-induced or concerning?

Dr.Martinez Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:38 PM 14 replies 204 viewsPage 1 of 3
Dr.Martinez
Medical Advisor
3,891
28,456
Nov 2023
Boston, MA
Online
Jun 7, 2026 at 4:38 PM#1

Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.

The intervention that works is boring and well evidenced: resistance training two to three times a week at a genuine effort, protein at 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg of reference body weight, and not making the deficit larger than the training can support. Cardio does not protect lean mass and in a deep deficit competes with recovery.

Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.

The bit I cannot resolve on my own is whether resistance training and protein change the ratio or only the absolute amount. I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.

Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
28 23AttorneyGrant, DebRD_ATL, KristenIndy and 25 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
amsterdam_pete
Senior Member
1,567
6,789
Feb 2024
Netherlands
Jun 7, 2026 at 4:56 PM#2
Dr.Martinez said:
The intervention that works is boring and well evidenced: resistance training two to three times a week at a genuine effort, protein at 1.4 to 2.0…

Dr.Martinez has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. The honest range is roughly 20 to 40% of total loss as lean mass without deliberate resistance training, and roughly 10 to 20% with it plus adequate protein. Both numbers need a caveat that matters: "lean mass" on a DEXA is not muscle. It includes water, glycogen and the lean fraction of organs, and glycogen alone carries about three grams of water per gram. A large early lean drop is mostly the glycogen and water going, which is why the first scan flatters and the second is the honest one.

Last edited: Jun 7, 2026 at 10:56 PM
27 22ZaraB_AL, JakeSmashed95, NauseaFreeNow and 24 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
TrialNerd_Beth
Senior Member
2,345
11,234
Jan 2024
Bethesda, MD
Jun 7, 2026 at 5:15 PM#3
Dr.Martinez said:
The intervention that works is boring and well evidenced: resistance training two to three times a week at a genuine effort, protein at 1.4 to 2.0…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think this board over-worries about lean mass. Some lean loss is obligatory — you need less muscle to move a smaller body, and preserving mass you no longer need is not a health outcome. The question is whether strength and function held, and mine did.

26 21TomTeleRx, DoseLogDan, SleepFixSam and 23 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing

Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.

Verify Your Peptides

GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer

Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.

Browse GL Biochem
hans_munich
Member
534
2,345
Jul 2024
Munich, DE
Jun 7, 2026 at 5:33 PM#4

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. There is also a quality change that the scan cannot see. Weight loss shifts fiber-type distribution toward Type I and improves mitochondrial density and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake per fiber — so the muscle you keep is metabolically better even though there is less of it. That does not make the loss irrelevant, but it explains why function often holds up better than the number suggests.

Last edited: Jun 7, 2026 at 11:33 PM
25 20tammy_FL, Dr.LipidDallas, alex_tucson and 22 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
BiostatsBrad
Member
456
2,345
Jul 2024
Durham, NC
Jun 7, 2026 at 7:16 PM#5
amsterdam_pete said:
The honest range is roughly 20 to 40% of total loss as lean mass without deliberate resistance training, and roughly 10 to 20% with it plus adequate…

Agreed, with the caveat that "exercise" for someone with mobility limitations is a different set of options, and the standard advice is written as though everyone can walk for an hour.

Last edited: Jun 7, 2026 at 8:16 PM
24 19NicoleRaleigh, james_edin, FranDenver and 21 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

Resistance training prevents 73% lean mass loss on semaglutide — RCT review11 replies
DEXA scan longitudinal data — 12 months on GLP-1 + lifting18 replies
Zone 2 cardio + GLP-1: synergistic metabolic benefits — evidence18 replies
Body recomposition protocol: GLP-1 + progressive overload + high protein8 replies
Walking 10,000 steps/day impact on GLP-1 weight loss — pedometer study6 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register