Dr.MetabolicMD said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

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

One thing that is still open after Dr.MetabolicMD’s answer:

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

NicoleRaleigh said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.

NicoleRaleigh said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.