greg_boulder said:

What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

greg_boulder said:

What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

greg_boulder said:

What actually changed my mind was the point about waiting for a trend instead of reading a single measurement, which is embarrassing in hindsight and…

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

Worth separating that from training through weight loss, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

KevinCompounds said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

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