🍪 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 loading vs maintenance on GLP-1 — optimal protocol

Creatine loading vs maintenance on GLP-1 — optimal protocol

MikeFit_NJ Sat, May 23, 2026 at 5:02 AM 4 replies 314 viewsPage 1 of 1
MikeFit_NJ
Senior Member
1,567
6,543
Apr 2024
New Jersey
May 23, 2026 at 5:02 AM#1

Collecting this in one place because it comes up every few weeks and the answer is always assembled from scratch. It is about the maintenance and discontinuation question, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt. Participants who continued kept losing; participants switched to placebo regained about two thirds of what they had lost within a year, and the metabolic improvements faded with the weight. That is the same pattern as every other chronic-disease medication ever withdrawn, and it is an argument about the condition rather than about the drug.

The condition it depends on

The caveat that "maintenance dose" in the literature almost always means the top studied dose. Lower maintenance doses are widely used and thinly evidenced, which is worth knowing before you cite anything as established.

What I am not sure about

What I am after is whether extending the interval works as well as reducing the dose, since they are not the same intervention pharmacologically. If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.

— MikeFit_NJ · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
12 7LeilaHI, marcus_mpls, DeniseRN_TPA and 9 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
TrialNerd_Beth
Senior Member
2,345
11,234
Jan 2024
Bethesda, MD
May 23, 2026 at 5:45 AM#2
MikeFit_NJ said:
STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt.

MikeFit_NJ has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. One third of STEP 4 participants held most of their loss without the drug, and nobody has convincingly characterised who they are. That subgroup is the most interesting unanswered question in the field and it is routinely flattened into the two-thirds headline.

11 6PharmHunterJen, TomTeleRx, DoseLogDan and 8 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
sarah.morrison
VIP Member
3,212
14,567
Jan 2024
California
Online
May 23, 2026 at 6:28 AM#3
MikeFit_NJ said:
STEP 4 is the study that answers this and it is blunt.

The regain framing needs pushing back on. Two thirds regained means one third did not, and the trial provided no ongoing support to either group. Treating regain as pharmacologically inevitable is as unsupported as treating maintenance as automatic.

Last edited: May 23, 2026 at 7:28 AM
10 5tony_orlando, Dr.NephBHM_UK, kim_atl_prep and 7 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
hyun_seoul
Member
345
1,456
Jul 2024
Seoul, KR
May 23, 2026 at 7:11 AM#4

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Extending the interval and reducing the dose are pharmacologically different. Reducing the dose lowers the whole exposure curve evenly; extending the interval keeps the peak and drops the trough. Since the appetite effect tracks the trough, interval extension tends to give you good days and bad days rather than a uniformly smaller effect, which most people find harder to live with.

Last edited: May 23, 2026 at 11:11 AM
9 4BariatricNurseD, MASHdoc_SA, GenomicsKate and 6 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
james_edin
Member
289
1,234
Sep 2024
Edinburgh, UK
May 23, 2026 at 11:13 AM#5
TrialNerd_Beth said:
One third of STEP 4 participants held most of their loss without the drug, and nobody has convincingly characterised who they are.

Right, and protein targets should be set on a reference weight rather than current weight. Setting 1.6 g/kg on a starting weight of 130kg produces a target nobody hits on a suppressed appetite.

Last edited: May 23, 2026 at 1:13 PM
8 3bbq_ray_KC, oliver_london, tane_welly and 5 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
Creatine kinase elevations on GLP-1 — exercise-induced or concerning?14 replies
Body recomposition protocol: GLP-1 + progressive overload + high protein8 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register