Dr.ReproEndo said:

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

Dr.ObesityMed said:

Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.