TrialNerd_Beth said:

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

Mine went the same way, slower. Nothing to add that would improve it.

TrialNerd_Beth said:

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

Coming at TrialNerd_Beth’s question from a different direction. 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. 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.

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

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

bri_stats said:

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

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.