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, including by me.
Framed properly it is answerable. Framed the usual way it is not, and that is most of why the previous threads went nowhere.
Post #7 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Summarising the 18-month record thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Answering the question post #7 raises rather than the one it answers.
A single scale used throughout beats a more accurate scale introduced halfway through. Consistency beats accuracy for a trend.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
Self-reported intake is optimistic in a consistent direction, and saying so in your own report is more credible than not.
Rate of change matters more than the absolute number for most of the questions people ask about their own series.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
Post #28 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
One caution on 18-month record: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
18-month record: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Two people in this thread mean different things by 18-month record and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
Building on post #70 rather than restating it.
If a pattern survives a rolling-mean treatment it is worth explaining. Most do not, and that is the useful finding.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
Read the full topic (82 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here
On the subject in the title: Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here Working notes rather than a conclusion. Proposing that Reporting a disappointing outcome deserves a maintained page…
|
2 | 11k | 8mo | |
|
[2026 update] Waist circumference technique and its repeatability
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Waist circumference technique and its repeatability Everything below is what sits behind that. An honest uncertainty about Waist circumference technique rather than…
|
+23 | 27 | 5.9k | 21h |
|
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — does this still hold?
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting a small dataset on 40-week log. It is…
|
+1 | 5 | 14k | 2mo |
|
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured — the long version
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A narrow question about plateau, deliberately narrow, because…
|
+49 | 54 | 9.4k | 1mo |
|
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a series rather than a conclusion, with the method first.…
|
+109 | 125 | 42k | 10h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning
On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo | |
|
Measurement error in home scales, with a worked standard deviation — a second dataset
Measurement error in home scales, with a worked standard deviation — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Measurement error in home…
|
2 | 13k | 7mo | |
|
A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added
A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I was wrong about pooled estimate in a thread last spring and I would like to…
|
+24 | 28 | 3.5k | 2d |
|
SURMOUNT-4 and what withdrawal data does and does not tell an individual — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: SURMOUNT-4 and what withdrawal data does and does not tell an individual — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to disagree carefully…
|
+122 | 136 | 48k | 9mo |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about criticising the method without criticising in a…
|
+55 | 61 | 60k | 15mo |