An 18-month record including the parts that went badly posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #28 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
One caution on 18-month record: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
I have been on both sides of the 18-month record argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
What I want from this 18-month record thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Post #36 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.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
18-month record: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Plateaus and resets: if weight loss stalls and then resumes, that is ordinary. It is not evidence that the medication stopped working. It is not evidence that it is still working either. It is a data point in a longer record.
Source for the 18-month record figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for 18-month record post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #41 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I disagree with the framing of 18-month record above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
What would change my mind on 18-month record is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
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.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
I had written a reply contradicting post #45 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Photographs at fixed intervals under fixed conditions are a better record of composition change than the scale, and much harder to standardise.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Confirming post #45 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Self-reported intake is optimistic in a consistent direction, and saying so in your own report is more credible than not.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Building on post #48 rather than restating it.
Before the thread moves on from 18-month record — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
One more thing on 18-month record that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
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.
Post #52 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Adding a reference point for 18-month record. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
I read post #50 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Medication changes: escalating dose, or adding or removing other medications, can affect the rate of weight loss. Documenting medication changes alongside weight makes the record interpretable.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
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.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
Building on post #56 rather than restating it.
On 18-month record I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Post #59 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
The honest answer on 18-month record is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.