chris_chi24 said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

quinn_sf said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

quinn_sf said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.