Dr.ObesityLA said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

Dr.RaviCardio said:

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

I read this differently from Dr.RaviCardio, on substance rather than tone. 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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

Closing the loop on my own question.

Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.