TirzTom said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Pushing back on TirzTom here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

TirzTom said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

TirzTom said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

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…

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.