Medication changes: escalating dose, or adding or removing other medications, can affect the rate of weight loss. Documenting medication changes alongside weight makes the record interpretable.
An 18-month record including the parts that went badly posts 61–82
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
Worth separating two things that post #59 runs together.
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.
post #63 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Coming back to post #63, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Rate of change: reporting progress as "lost 5 kg in 12 weeks" is more useful than "currently at 82 kg" because the rate tells you whether the change is steady, accelerating, or stalling.
Exercise volume changes: increasing exercise intensity or duration can mask weight loss (muscle gain) on the scale. Noting exercise changes when reporting weight helps interpret results.
post #67 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Plateaus and resets: if weight loss stalls and then resumes, that is ordinary. It is not evidence that the medication stopped working. It is not evidence that it is still working either. It is a data point in a longer record.
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.
This follows post #67 rather than contradicting it.
Medication changes: escalating dose, or adding or removing other medications, can affect the rate of weight loss. Documenting medication changes alongside weight makes the record interpretable.
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.
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.
Picking up post #70: that is the part I would want checked first.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Medication changes: escalating dose, or adding or removing other medications, can affect the rate of weight loss. Documenting medication changes alongside weight makes the record interpretable.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
This follows post #74 rather than contradicting it.
Plateaus and resets: if weight loss stalls and then resumes, that is ordinary. It is not evidence that the medication stopped working. It is not evidence that it is still working either. It is a data point in a longer record.
I read post #76 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Exercise volume changes: increasing exercise intensity or duration can mask weight loss (muscle gain) on the scale. Noting exercise changes when reporting weight helps interpret results.
post #78 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
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.
Protein intake and resistance training: both self-reported and therefore optimistic in most reports. Recording them anyway creates a record you can look back on.
This topic was referenced in
- Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead — one year onOutcomes › Progress reports · 88 replies
Suggested topics
| 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. Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number without a method is…
|
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. Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number without…
|
+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. Longitudinal report with the method stated,…
|
+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. Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number…
|
+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. Maintenance rather than loss, which is the part of this that almost…
|
+109 | 125 | 42k | 10h |
Related topics — sharing the tags data table, long read, effect size
| 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. I have seen SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) cited in support of a…
|
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. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with SURPASS-2…
|
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. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+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. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med…
|
+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 have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in support of a claim…
|
+55 | 61 | 60k | 15mo |