Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully

I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

This follows post #13 rather than contradicting 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.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

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.

Picking up post #17: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On post #20 — 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.

This follows post #22 rather than contradicting it.

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.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

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.

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.

Picking up post #26: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Coming back to post #28, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.