That's a very good question. Unfortunately the answer is nearly undefined/very high variance depending on the person undergoing the weight loss. There's a huge range of expected outcomes depending on history and weight loss plan.
Ideal case might be Neutral LBM: Fairly obese youngish person. No training history (say someone that was super active, but not athletic, in HS). Goes to college, walks a ton stays pretty skinny. Gets first desk job around 25-26 and gains a ton of weight. Holds onto the weight, without much activity for 2-3 years. Diets in the most ...
No disagreement from me :)
If you are interested in this drug to lose weight go very carefully. You might lose weight, but be plausibly more likely to get type 2 beetus at the end.
Not to my knowledge. There's a handful of studies that are pretty superficial (i.e. people come in for some DEXA (body composition) scans and that's it. I think it's going to take some time, because anyone involved in seeking approval of the drug has a huge negative incentive to look in this box, given the at least plausibly neutral results from the first supportive studies.
I think the place to look for citizen science on this is going to be in the longevity community and similar areas where you have people semi-openly experimenting with what is sometimes ...
Breaking my thoughts to your comment into 4 parts.
1: "Were you to follow your advice of "days of eating right, sleeping right and training for every single day of over eating" - which people who are obese have tried for decades and achieving normal BMI is rare - how is this mechanically different? Eating right means smaller meals and eating less kcals than daily metabolic needs"
All these using Freedom Units:
I've cut from >230 (I think peak around 245/250) to under 190 2 times with a 3rd 30 pound cut snuck in there. Going off Friday afternoon memory:
2013...
I've heard a lot of soccer leagues are taking steps to address headers, but afaik, it's a bit of a false lead b/c (and this is weak knowledge) a lot of the concussions are not header related. Happily, your kids didn't want to play it so doesn't matter much.
Boxing is such an odd sport in the modern context. I'd also add that you should be wary of some other MAs like TKD, as depending on the exact ruleset there can be an extreme focus on kicks to the head.
While I disagree, I can see why you would make that choice. Personally I stopped doing MAs when I realized I just really didn't like getting hit in the face.
Seems reasonable. I think the variance MA school to MA school is so incredibly high that it's almost impossible to layout a plan other than "visit schools within a reasonable trip and see".
Fair enough. Certainly schools have that, other schools have different cultures as well (but I'd guess the average is closer to your thought). Likely a different vibe from track/cross-country and marching band for sure. (Which isn't too say you don't have people that crossover/differences).
Pop Warner does football (and cheer) leagues for ages 5 to 16. There are other similar orgs, but it's the biggest. Some areas even have football for 3-4 year olds. Some of the rules are intended to reduce injuries (no kickoffs for example), but the biggest risk increase (for my model) is simple the increase in exposures. If you play football 7th-12th grade it's maybe 500 exposures (game or practice). If you start in 1st grade you're at least doubling the exposures, plus you might be doing other football leagues as well.
Higher exposures, more non-concussion head knocks. Of course the smaller kids don't hit as hard, but some games (afaik) have pretty big weight discrepancies even though the rules try to prevent it.
I'm sorry I don't know how to link comment and I addressed this question above. It's a really good question, with very undefined answer.