Building on post #7 rather than restating it. Athletes in weight-category sports is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
Athletes in weight-category sports: a different risk calculus — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Something about athletes in weight-category sports does not reconcile and I would like a second pair of eyes before I decide which half is wrong.
Two sources, both reputable, giving figures that cannot both be right unless they are measuring different quantities. My suspicion is that they are, and I cannot see how.
Post #3 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Post #3 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.
Building on post #7 rather than restating it.
Athletes in weight-category sports is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
Picking up post #7: that is the part I would want checked first.
A note on how athletes in weight-category sports gets discussed rather than on athletes in weight-category sports itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Athletes in weight-category sports: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
This follows post #12 rather than contradicting it.
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.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
The practical version of athletes in weight-category sports is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
On post #15 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Post #16 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Where I would push back on the athletes in weight-category sports consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
A methods point on athletes in weight-category sports rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Where I part company with post #19, and it is a narrow parting.
Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Everything in post #23 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Taking athletes in weight-category sports seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Dedicated trials in under-studied populations are the only real remedy and several are ongoing, which is worth saying rather than speculating.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
Building on post #27 rather than restating it.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
On post #27 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
Picking up post #27: that is the part I would want checked first.
My experience of athletes in weight-category sports contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.