On the subject in the title: Athletes in weight-category sports: a different risk calculus — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Posting a small dataset on Athletes in weight-category sports. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
Dedicated trials in under-studied populations are the only real remedy and several are ongoing, which is worth saying rather than speculating.
Hypoglycemia risk: in people already on insulin or sulfonylureas, adding a GLP-1 agonist requires insulin dose reduction and close monitoring for hypoglycemia. This is manageable with attention.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
On post #4 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Athletes in weight-category sports: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
Being outside the studied population does not mean a treatment is unsafe. It means the usual evidence is not available and the reasoning has to be explicit.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
This follows post #6 rather than contradicting it.
The most useful reply I ever got about Athletes in weight-category sports was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Worth separating two things that post #7 runs together.
Two people in this thread mean different things by Athletes in weight-category sports and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
This follows post #11 rather than contradicting it.
Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
Older adults: sarcopenia risk is higher, polypharmacy is common, and the clinical trials did not enroll many people over 75. Extrapolating to very old people is extrapolating beyond the data.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed Athletes in weight-category sports, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
I read post #15 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on Athletes in weight-category sports, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Reading back through the Athletes in weight-category sports threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
What I would want before treating Athletes in weight-category sports as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
The arithmetic in post #20 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Athletes and people in substantial training loads are effectively unstudied, and the questions asked here about performance have no trial evidence behind them at all.
Answering the question post #18 raises rather than the one it answers.
I disagree with the framing of Athletes in weight-category sports above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Narrowing post #23, because the general version has more than one answer.
The most useful contribution here is usually a citation to whichever published document comes closest, with a plain statement of how far it is from the question.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
Two claims get bundled together under Athletes in weight-category sports and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Post #26 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.
On Athletes in weight-category sports, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.