Dr.PeteFamMed said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Dr.GastroMayo said:

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…

Mine went the same way, slower.