Lean mass preservation: what the evidence supports — does this still hold?

Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Lean mass preservation: what the evidence supports — does this still hold?

What changes if the standard account of Lean mass preservation is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.

Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.

Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.

Preserving lean tissue during a substantial deficit depends on protein intake and a resistance stimulus, and the evidence for both is reasonably strong.

It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.

Photographs under fixed lighting and posture are a genuine record and are the hardest of these to standardise.

That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.

Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.

Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.

This follows post #99 rather than contradicting it.

What I would tell a new member reading about Lean mass preservation for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.

Source for the Lean mass preservation figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.

Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.