This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Worth separating two things that post #29 runs together.
A single scale used throughout beats a more accurate scale introduced halfway through. Consistency beats accuracy for a trend.
Rate of change matters more than the absolute number for most of the questions people ask about their own series.
The best progress reports here read as records rather than as arguments, and that difference is visible within a sentence.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Seven-day rolling in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Everything in post #33 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Two claims get bundled together under Seven-day rolling and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
Non-scale victories: muscle gain or maintenance, clothing fit, energy level, and capability (like climbing stairs without breathlessness) are measurements that scale-based weight misses.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Trying to state the Seven-day rolling position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
The arithmetic in post #39 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on Seven-day rolling. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Answering the question post #40 raises rather than the one it answers.
If a pattern survives a rolling-mean treatment it is worth explaining. Most do not, and that is the useful finding.
Practical experience of Seven-day rolling, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
An observation about Seven-day rolling that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
Day-to-day body mass varies by more than a kilogram on hydration, glycogen and gut contents alone. A weekly reading is one noisy sample of that distribution.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Answering the question post #47 raises rather than the one it answers.
What I can speak to on Seven-day rolling is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
The arithmetic in post #51 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Summarising the Seven-day rolling 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.
Everything in post #51 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Seven-day rolling is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
Adding a reference point for Seven-day rolling. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Menstrual cycle: for people who menstruate, weight can shift by several pounds across the cycle due to fluid retention and other factors. Noting cycle phase when weighing reduces apparent noise.