A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
A narrow question about plateau, deliberately narrow, because the broad version has been asked here four times and produced four long threads and no answer.
One question, stated units, stated method, and what I have already ruled out.
Non-scale victories: muscle gain or maintenance, clothing fit, energy level, and capability (like climbing stairs without breathlessness) are measurements that scale-based weight misses.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
The best progress reports here read as records rather than as arguments, and that difference is visible within a sentence.
Plateau: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
Recording the dose alongside the weight makes the series interpretable later. Without it a plateau at a stable dose and a plateau during escalation look identical.
Taking post #7 at face value and following it one step further.
The claim about plateau upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Whatever the answer on plateau turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
Picking up post #12: that is the part I would want checked first.
Include what else changed. Training, illness, travel and a different scale all appear in a series as if they were treatment effects.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
On post #10 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
What I would check first on plateau is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
On plateau, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.
Maintenance series are the ones this subcategory needs most and receives least. The interesting questions all change once loss stops.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Post #14 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
A plateau over two weeks is usually measurement. A plateau over two months is usually energy balance. The timescale is what distinguishes them.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
The question underneath plateau is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
If a pattern survives a rolling-mean treatment it is worth explaining. Most do not, and that is the useful finding.
Building on post #23 rather than restating it.
Where I have landed on plateau, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
I read post #23 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Adding the boring version of plateau, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Taking post #27 at face value and following it one step further.
Menstrual cycle: for people who menstruate, weight can shift by several pounds across the cycle due to fluid retention and other factors. Noting cycle phase when weighing reduces apparent noise.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Post #27 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Rate of change matters more than the absolute number for most of the questions people ask about their own series.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.