Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

jason_paloalto 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…

Pushing back on jason_paloalto here. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.

jason_paloalto 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…

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.

jason_paloalto 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. I will report back once I have actually tried it.