Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.
One thing that is still open after lucas_SP_BR’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsquinn_sf said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak. People who dose late are not losing a peak, they are letting the trough fall, and the appetite effect tracks the trough.