stefan_berlin said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Reporting back.

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. Strength was up throughout.

adam_van 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.

Second this.

adam_van 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.

Coming at adam_van’s question from a different direction. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.