Dr.SportsMedIN said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

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

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

quinn_sf said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.