Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Proposing that reporting a disappointing outcome deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting the skeleton here so that the argument about scope happens before the writing rather than after.
What I think belongs on it, what does not, and the three claims that would need a citation each.
My position on reporting a disappointing outcome is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
The arithmetic in the opening post is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Worth stating the null on reporting a disappointing outcome before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
A single scale used throughout beats a more accurate scale introduced halfway through. Consistency beats accuracy for a trend.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
Reporting rather than recommending, on reporting a disappointing outcome. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Post #5 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
I read the earlier replies on reporting a disappointing outcome twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Adding the measurement that post #5 says would settle it.
Nothing here is medical advice and a progress report is a description of what happened to one person under uncontrolled conditions.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
On post #8 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Reporting a disappointing outcome is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
I would call the community position on reporting a disappointing outcome likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
If a pattern survives a rolling-mean treatment it is worth explaining. Most do not, and that is the useful finding.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
Exercise volume changes: increasing exercise intensity or duration can mask weight loss (muscle gain) on the scale. Noting exercise changes when reporting weight helps interpret results.
Post #15 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed reporting a disappointing outcome, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
Adding a reference point for reporting a disappointing outcome. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
A methods point on reporting a disappointing outcome rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Where a series is going to be posted, saying so before the outcome is known is a small precommitment that makes it more honest.
Self-reported intake is optimistic in a consistent direction, and saying so in your own report is more credible than not.
Reading back through the reporting a disappointing outcome threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
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.
Adding the measurement that post #25 says would settle it.
The reason reporting a disappointing outcome 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 #28 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Rate of change: reporting progress as "lost 5 kg in 12 weeks" is more useful than "currently at 82 kg" because the rate tells you whether the change is steady, accelerating, or stalling.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — does this still hold?
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting a small dataset on 40-week log. It is…
|
+1 | 5 | 14k | 2mo |
|
[2026 update] Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here
On the subject in the title: Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here Working notes rather than a conclusion. Proposing that Reporting a disappointing outcome deserves a maintained page…
|
2 | 11k | 8mo | |
|
An 18-month record including the parts that went badly
An 18-month record including the parts that went badly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about 18-month record on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked badly,…
|
+77 | 81 | 17k | 12h |
|
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a series rather than a conclusion, with the method first.…
|
+109 | 125 | 42k | 10h |
|
Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead — one year on
On the subject in the title: Seven-day rolling means and why weekly readings mislead — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about Seven-day rolling directly, because I have read four…
|
+78 | 88 | 16k | 5mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1
On the subject in the title: Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1 Working notes rather than a conclusion. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on Amylin analogue…
|
+27 | 31 | 671 | 12mo |
|
Where impurities in solid-phase peptide synthesis come from
Where impurities in solid-phase peptide synthesis come from Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Impurities in solid-phase peptide synthesis, and specifically the…
|
+54 | 59 | 14k | 3mo |
|
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 |
|
Second pass at: Manufacturer assistance programmes and their eligibility rules
Second pass at: Manufacturer assistance programmes and their eligibility rules — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+13 | 17 | 1.8k | 16mo |
|
Comparing two chromatograms from different laboratories, properly
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Comparing two chromatograms from different laboratories, properly Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to understand what this number means…
|
+35 | 40 | 22k | 7mo |