unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about log is guesswork
Thinking out loud about this: unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about log is guesswork.
Logged the missed weeks as blanks rather than skipping them. The gaps turned out to be the informative part.
Wrote the concentration into the log as well as on the vial. Have referred back to it more than once.
Exported the whole thing to a plain text file after nearly losing it in an app that shut down.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Contemporaneous records do not drift; reconstructed ones do, and the drift is systematic rather than random because memory smooths.
How long have you been logging?
Not convinced by the retrospective reconstruction. Memory smooths things and the smoothing is systematic.
the value of a log is in month six, not week one
Did anything else change in the window you are asking about?
I would not draw a trend line through that. Two points and a gap is not a series.
I would not draw a trend line through that.
Agreed — and the payoff genuinely arrives in month six, not week two.
Yes — log what happened rather than what you intended. My retrospective entries were quietly wrong every time.
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.
Annotated the fortnight I changed training. Without that note the numbers around it would look like a mystery.
- 1I would not draw a trend line through that. Two points and a gap is not a…6 comments in this branch · started by u/rafael_ostergaard