Posting this under the heading it deserves: History of disordered eating and why it changes the conversation Everything below is what sits behind that.
What changes if the standard account of History of disordered eating 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.
Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
I read post #2 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
A note on how History of disordered eating gets discussed rather than on History of disordered eating itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Building on post #4 rather than restating it.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to History of disordered eating: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
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.
Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.
Where I part company with post #7, and it is a narrow parting.
On History of disordered eating I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.
For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.
Dedicated trials in under-studied populations are the only real remedy and several are ongoing, which is worth saying rather than speculating.
Post #13 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Disordered eating history: a history of anorexia nervosa, bulimia, or other eating disorders changes the risk-benefit calculation because appetite suppression might trigger relapse. This population requires specialist input.
Worth separating two things that post #13 runs together.
The number people quote for History of disordered eating is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
This follows post #13 rather than contradicting it.
History of disordered eating was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.
The arithmetic in post #17 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Whatever the answer on History of disordered eating turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Post #20 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
I have been on both sides of the History of disordered eating argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
The thing about History of disordered eating that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Post #26 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Posting my History of disordered eating numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
What I would check first on History of disordered eating is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.