sophie_paris said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

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

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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 same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.

Following on from sophie_paris — and this may be the naive question:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

quinn_sf 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 quinn_sf here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.

quinn_sf 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, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.