VendorMark said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

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

Dr.ObesityLA 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…

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Dr.ObesityLA 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…

Coming at Dr.ObesityLA’s question from a different direction. 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.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.