Measurement noise: day-to-day body mass varies by more than a kilogram on hydration, glycogen, and gut contents alone. A weekly reading is a single noisy sample of a distribution. A seven-day rolling mean of daily readings has much lower noise. The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was…
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Posting a small dataset on 40-week log. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
The arithmetic in the opening post is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
A plateau over two weeks is usually measurement. A plateau over two months is usually energy balance. The timescale is what distinguishes them.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Weighing daily and reporting weekly is a better protocol than weighing weekly, because it separates the measurement frequency from the reporting frequency.
I would call the community position on 40-week log likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Narrowing post #5, because the general version has more than one answer.
Seasonal patterns: some people report weight loss is slower in winter than summer. Body composition and activity changes might contribute. Noting the season is useful context.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Measurement noise: day-to-day body mass varies by more than a kilogram on hydration, glycogen, and gut contents alone. A weekly reading is a single noisy sample of a distribution. A seven-day rolling mean of daily readings has much lower noise.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.
Marking my uncertainty on 40-week log explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.
Picking up post #10: that is the part I would want checked first.
The question underneath 40-week log is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Longitudinal report with the method stated: same scale, same time of day, same conditions. A scale is a tool; use the same one each time. Consistency matters more than accuracy at capturing absolute weight.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An 18-month record including the parts that went badly
An 18-month record including the parts that went badly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about 18-month record on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked badly,…
|
+77 | 81 | 17k | 12h |
|
Coming back to: An 18-month record including the parts that went badly
Posting this under the heading it deserves: An 18-month record including the parts that went badly Everything below is what sits behind that. Asking about 18-month record on behalf of the question I keep…
|
+83 | 89 | 52k | 12mo |
|
Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully — a second dataset
Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Maintenance rather than loss, which is the part of this that…
|
+77 | 81 | 16k | 11h |
|
Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here
Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that reporting a disappointing outcome deserves a…
|
+21 | 29 | 62k | 10mo |
|
About the Progress reports category
Longitudinal self-reports with the method stated. Scales, tape measures, and their error bars. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
4 | 139 | 16mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] Why 99.2% and 97.8% on the same lot can both be correct
Why 99.2% and 97.8% on the same lot can both be correct — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I would like to understand what this number means before I…
|
+1 | 5 | 719 | 2d |
|
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about plateau in a thread last spring and I would…
|
+27 | 31 | 7.2k | 3mo |
|
Individual participant data versus aggregate data
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Individual participant data versus aggregate data Everything below is what sits behind that. Something about individual participant data versus aggregate does not…
|
+30 | 34 | 64k | 14mo |
|
Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Reading SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+60 | 66 | 12k | 16mo |
|
Coming back to: Column chemistry choices for a 40-residue peptide
On the subject in the title: Column chemistry choices for a 40-residue peptide Working notes rather than a conclusion. Column chemistry choices — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of…
|
2 | 43k | 16mo |