raj_cambridge said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

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.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

raj_cambridge said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Taking it to my next appointment.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Carry on.

mel_PDX said:

That holds where the measurement is reliable.

Mine went the same way, slower.

mel_PDX said:

That holds where the measurement is reliable.

Coming at mel_PDX’s question from a different direction. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.