GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
0

[Results] nine months, one boring spreadsheet, and three fake "stalls" that weren’t

Results Well Actually ×9

61 tabs in this spreadsheet at this point and the single most useful column isn't weight, it's the 7-day rolling average next to it. Nine months in, raw numbers "stalled" (flat for 10+ days) three separate times. The rolling average never actually went flat for more than about 4 days any of those times.

"Stall" #Raw-number flat daysRolling avg flat daysWas it real
1 (week 4)113no
2 (week 9)134no
3 (week 22)162no

Zero of my three "stalls" were real by the rolling-average standard. Posting the boring numbers because I think a lot of quitting happens at exactly this kind of fake stall.

0 up / 0 down47% upvoted14 commentsid y339vn19 Jul 2026

14 comments

14 in this archive, depth 3

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/graph_it_gary211 points·10 days ago

this table is basically the empirical proof of the thing I keep saying in every one of these threads. thank you for actually doing it with real numbers instead of me just asserting it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/spreadsheet_gremlinOPdata97 points·10 days ago

honestly did it partly to prove it to myself, I was fully convinced stall #2 was real while it was happening

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_four_wall58 points·10 days ago

this is the whole trap, it always feels real in the moment, the data is the only thing that argues back

replysharereportpermalink
u/due_diligence_dee88 points·10 days ago

would genuinely read a full writeup of your spreadsheet methodology, this table alone answered a question I've had for months

replysharereportpermalink
u/titration_marshalMOD71 points·10 days ago

Flairing Results and pinning alongside the noise-vs-plateau explainer post, they pair well together — one's the theory, this is the data backing it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hazard_ratio_halstats52 points·10 days ago

small stats nitpick, meant kindly: 3 stalls isn't enough to generalize from on its own, but as a demonstration of the mechanism for one person it's genuinely clean and well presented.

replysharereportpermalink
u/spreadsheet_gremlinOPdata34 points·10 days ago

completely fair, n=1 person with 3 events, not claiming more than that, just wanted the receipts to exist somewhere

replysharereportpermalink
u/devils_advocate_d-9 points·10 days ago

convenient that all three "weren't real" by your own chosen threshold, feels a little like the method is built to always say noise

replysharereportpermalink
u/graph_it_gary41 points·10 days ago

the threshold (rolling avg flat 3+ weeks) isn't arbitrary though, it's roughly matched to how long it takes water/sodium noise to average out. it's not built to always say noise, it's just that most short stalls genuinely are noise, which is the actual point being made across all these threads.

replysharereportpermalink
u/devils_advocate_d16 points·9 days ago

ok, that's a fair defense of the threshold, walking back the "built to always say noise" framing

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]-2 points·10 days ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/tl_dr_tina24 points·10 days ago

tl;dr — 3 for 3 fake stalls in nine months once you look at the right number instead of the raw one

replysharereportpermalink
u/quiet_reader_9913 points·10 days ago

this table talked me into finally building my own spreadsheet instead of just eyeballing the app graph

replysharereportpermalink
u/karma_irrelevant7 points·10 days ago

fwiw stall #3 at week 22 having the shortest rolling-average blip is a nice detail, later on the noise seems to settle out faster for you

replysharereportpermalink
About c/progresspics

Progress posts with no images, by design. Starting point, current point, timeframe, dose history, what changed besides the scale. Text-only removes the comparison trap, the body-shaming pile-on and the entire question of who owns a photo of your torso.

51kmembers
62submissions
May 2024created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
c/progresspics rules
  1. No images. None. Not even redacted ones. This is the whole point of the community.
  2. Include timeframe and starting point or it reads as a brag with no information.
  3. No commenting on anybody's body. Comment on the process.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.