Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

NicoleRaleigh said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

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

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.