TomTeleRx said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Six weeks on from posting: I stopped reading the weekly number and started reading a four-week average, and the "stall" I opened this thread about was a 1.8kg loss I could not see.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemjim_asheville said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
jim_asheville said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Holding longer is the underrated move. A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component tachyphylaxes while the appetite effect persists. Escalating at week two throws that adaptation away.