History of disordered eating and why it changes the conversation

History of disordered eating and why it changes the conversation Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

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.

This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it.

Gastroparesis: pre-existing severe delayed gastric emptying can worsen with compounds that slow it further. Discussion with a clinician is prudent if this history exists.

I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.

One more thing on history of disordered eating that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.

I would call the community position on history of disordered eating likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.

The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Medullary thyroid carcinoma history: an absolute contraindication because of the preclinical findings in rodent toxicology. The history (personal or family, especially multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2) is an important screening question.

That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.

Adding a reference point for history of disordered eating. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.

Post #5 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed history of disordered eating, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.

Extrapolating a point estimate to somebody well outside the enrolled range should be described as an extrapolation every time it is done.

Agreed on history of disordered eating, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.

Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first.

Pancreatitis history: the compounds can rarely trigger pancreatitis. A history of pancreatitis makes monitoring for recurrence more important during titration.

On post #8 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

The failure mode on history of disordered eating is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.

Summarising the history of disordered eating thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.

Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.

On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.