This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Taking post #58 at face value and following it one step further.
The bit of 18-month record that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
Reframing 18-month record slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Where the 18-month record discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Offering a way to settle 18-month record rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
The best progress reports here read as records rather than as arguments, and that difference is visible within a sentence.
The reason 18-month record keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Post #71 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
18-month record is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
Photographs at fixed intervals under fixed conditions are a better record of composition change than the scale, and much harder to standardise.
My experience of 18-month record contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
Everything in post #75 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
The version of 18-month record that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Adding a small correction to the 18-month record summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
If a pattern survives a rolling-mean treatment it is worth explaining. Most do not, and that is the useful finding.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Where I part company with post #82, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
The arithmetic in post #84 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Maintenance series are the ones this subcategory needs most and receives least. The interesting questions all change once loss stops.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
The thing about 18-month record that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Post #86 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
Narrowing post #88, because the general version has more than one answer.
The practical version of 18-month record is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Everything in post #86 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
I would keep 18-month record and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured — the long version
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…
|
+49 | 54 | 9.4k | 1mo |
|
[2026 update] Waist circumference technique and its repeatability
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Waist circumference technique and its repeatability Everything below is what sits behind that. An honest uncertainty about Waist circumference technique rather than…
|
+23 | 27 | 5.9k | 21h |
|
About the Progress reports category
Longitudinal self-reports with the method stated. Scales, tape measures, and their error bars. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
4 | 139 | 16mo | |
|
Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully Everything below is what sits behind that. Maintenance rather than loss, which is the part of this that…
|
+86 | 92 | 54k | 7mo |
|
What I would record differently if I started again — the long version
What I would record differently if I started again — the long version I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Asking about the phase almost nobody writes…
|
+22 | 26 | 57k | 5mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Training through a dose escalation week
On the subject in the title: Training through a dose escalation week Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Training through a dose escalation is wrong? I ask because…
|
+68 | 74 | 46k | 4mo |
|
About the N-of-1 designs category
Designing a personal experiment that could actually change your mind, including washouts and blinding. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is…
|
4 | 22k | 14h | |
|
Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind — one year on
Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+74 | 80 | 17k | 2d |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about criticising the method without criticising in a…
|
+55 | 61 | 60k | 15mo |
|
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints Everything below is what sits behind that. Working notes on semaglutide in MASH rather than a conclusion.…
|
+24 | 28 | 17k | 15h |