PeptideChemSF said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Second this. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

lisa_labSD said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Coming at lisa_labSD’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

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

Following on from lisa_labSD — and this may be the naive question:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed.