lisa_labSD 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.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

lisa_labSD 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. Taking it to my next appointment.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. No action needed from anybody.

Dr.PainCLE said:

That holds where the measurement is reliable.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.

Dr.PainCLE said:

That holds where the measurement is reliable.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.