DerekSJ_a1c said:

Second scan under matched conditions, six months apart, same time of day: the lean number came back nearly a kilo higher than the panic scan.

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.

DerekSJ_a1c said:

Second scan under matched conditions, six months apart, same time of day: the lean number came back nearly a kilo higher than the panic scan.

Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.

DerekSJ_a1c said:

Second scan under matched conditions, six months apart, same time of day: the lean number came back nearly a kilo higher than the panic scan.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

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.

anders_CPH said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.