[Concluded] 104 weeks. final numbers. thanks for reading.
104 weeks. final numbers. thanks for reading. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
104 weeks — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
Built an elaborate spreadsheet, abandoned it by week nine, restarted with four columns and have kept it ever since.
Reconstructed six weeks from memory once and later found receipts that contradicted my own log. Never again.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Why contemporaneous beats reconstructed, with the failure mode.
Memory smooths. Reconstructing a fortnight from recollection produces a series that is more regular, more consistent with your current beliefs, and quietly wrong in a direction that flatters the story you are already telling.
I found this out by reconstructing six weeks and later finding order receipts that contradicted my own entries. The log was not a little wrong; it was wrong in exactly the direction that made my narrative work. Write it down on the day, even the boring days, especially the boring days.
Are the missed weeks in there as blanks or dropped entirely?
waist monthly, weight weekly, notes whenever
waist monthly, weight weekly, notes whenever
This is the whole discipline in one line. Contemporaneous, consistent, minimal.
Yes — log what happened rather than what you intended. My retrospective entries were quietly wrong every time.
waist monthly, weight weekly, notes whenever
stubborn_batchlist_only is right about blanks. Silent gaps make the series lie.
Wrote the concentration into the log as well as on the vial. Have referred back to it more than once.
Attribution requires that one thing change at a time. A log with dose, training and intake all moving in the same fortnight cannot assign anything to any of them.
Small fix — that is a reconstructed entry rather than a contemporaneous one, and the post presents it as the latter.
annotate the weeks where something else changed
annotate the weeks where something else changed
Adding the column everyone adds late — sleep. Start with it.
Correction: those two entries are 17 weeks apart, not consecutive, which changes how the middle of that series reads.
the value of a log is in month six, not week one
Added the Log flair and a date range to the title so it is findable later.
Is the concentration recorded anywhere in the log?
Push back: a log with four variables changing at once cannot attribute anything to any of them.
The attribution problem, which is the reason most logs on this board cannot answer the question their owner is asking.
If dose, training, intake and sleep all changed in the same fortnight, no analysis of the resulting numbers can tell you which one moved the outcome. That is not a limitation of your spreadsheet; it is a limitation of the design.
The fix is unglamorous: change one thing at a time, leave it long enough to see, and annotate the weeks where something else intruded anyway — because life will intrude. A log with honest annotations answers questions. A log with four simultaneous changes and a confident conclusion is the most common thing posted here, and it does not.
Annotation is what makes a log survive contact with your future self. A single note beside an unusual week saves an hour of puzzled reconstruction later.
That is a waist figure in the weight column. Easy mistake and it makes the chart look dramatic.
log what you did, not what you meant to do
Cosigning on missed weeks. Leaving them blank makes the whole series misleading.
Same conditions each time for the weigh-in?
export it somewhere you will still be able to read in two years
Missing entries recorded as blanks preserve the shape of the series. Dropping them silently makes the remaining points look more regular than they were.
- 1Wrote the concentration into the log as well as on the vial. Have referred…7 comments in this branch · started by u/quarter_dose_queen