Dr.SportsMedIN said:

Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.

Mine went the same way, slower.

Dr.SportsMedIN said:

Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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

jason_paloalto said:

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

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.