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.

Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number without a method is not a measurement.

Same scale, same time of day, same conditions, 81 weeks. I have also recorded protein intake and resistance-training sessions, both self-reported and both therefore optimistic.

The reason I am posting is a pattern in the middle of the series that I cannot explain and that I suspect is measurement rather than signal.

Protein intake and resistance training: both self-reported and therefore optimistic in most reports. Recording them anyway creates a record you can look back on.

On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

post #2 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

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.

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.

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 #7 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

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

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.

Picking up post #7: that is the part I would want checked first.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

Coming back to post #10, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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 #12 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

Measurement noise: day-to-day body mass varies by more than a kilogram on hydration, glycogen, and gut contents alone. A weekly reading is a single noisy sample of a distribution. A seven-day rolling mean of daily readings has much lower noise.