This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
post #90 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #92, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
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 follows post #94 rather than contradicting it.
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.
I read post #96 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
On post #96 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
post #100 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 #106, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
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.
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.
Picking up post #109: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
On post #109 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #113 runs together.
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 #117 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
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.
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.