wendy_avl said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

wendy_avl said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

wendy_avl said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

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

newstart_MO said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.