LipidDoc_ATL said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.

stefan_berlin said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Coming at stefan_berlin’s question from a different direction. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

Following on from stefan_berlin — and this may be the naive question:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out.