A 40-week log with the measurement method stated

On the subject in the title: A 40-week log with the measurement method stated Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Asking about 40-week log directly, because I have read four threads on it and each answered a slightly different question.

The version I want answered is the narrow one: given the method stated below, is the result within what anyone else has seen? I am not asking what it means yet.

Method, numbers and the two assumptions I am aware of making are below. If the assumptions are wrong that is more useful to me than agreement.

Whatever the answer on 40-week log turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.

The version of 40-week log that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.

The opening post put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

A single scale used throughout beats a more accurate scale introduced halfway through. Consistency beats accuracy for a trend.

Weighing daily and reporting weekly is a better protocol than weighing weekly, because it separates the measurement frequency from the reporting frequency.

The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.

Marking my uncertainty on 40-week log explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.

Post #6 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

If someone has run 40-week log properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.

Where I part company with post #4, and it is a narrow parting.

Self-reported intake is optimistic in a consistent direction, and saying so in your own report is more credible than not.

A methods point on 40-week log rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.

Coming back to post #8, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Longitudinal report with the method stated: same scale, same time of day, same conditions. A scale is a tool; use the same one each time. Consistency matters more than accuracy at capturing absolute weight.

Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.

Coming back to post #7, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

On 40-week log: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.

Seasonal patterns: some people report weight loss is slower in winter than summer. Body composition and activity changes might contribute. Noting the season is useful context.

Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.

I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.

Small correction to my own earlier position on 40-week log. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.