hank_denver 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…

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Posting only so the count is not one.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Coming at PharmD_Rodriguez’s question from a different direction. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

One concrete data point for the thread. 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.

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