Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here

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.

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.

Picking up post #14: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

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.

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.

On post #17 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

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.

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.

This follows post #25 rather than contradicting it.

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.

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.

post #29 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.