1) The first clue is a gap
The dataset spans . But the scale only speaks on of those days. A detective’s instinct kicks in: missingness is a motive.
The chart begins wide—years at a glance—because stories don’t start where they get interesting. They start where you can still pretend nothing happened.
2) Zoom in: 2025 is when the case opens
On , the scale reads . By , it reads . That’s in .
Total change across 2025 weigh‑ins (Jan → Dec). But the shape matters more than the total.
The dots are daily weigh‑ins. The line is a 7‑day trend—because bodies are noisy instruments, and detectives don’t convict on a single witness.
3) The curve isn’t one story. It’s three.
A piecewise fit (think: “where does the ruler bend?”) finds two breaks: and .
Before the first break, weight falls like a trapdoor. After it, the drop continues—just slower. And then, after the second break, something even stranger happens: the line stops being a slide… and becomes a tightrope.
4) Milestones: five numbers, five scenes
Stories need scenes you can point to. These are yours: the first days you crossed 80, 75, 70, 65, and 63 kg. The chart marks them like thumbtacks on a corkboard.
The temptation is to celebrate the milestones. The smarter move is to ask: what changed right before them? That’s where leverage hides.
5) The smoking gun: the fastest fortnight
The most dramatic 14‑day stretch ends on : roughly in two weeks.
That kind of drop is rarely “fat alone.” It’s usually a cocktail: glycogen, water, gut content—plus whatever real deficit you created. The point isn’t to discount it. The point is to not mistake it for a permanent law of physics.
Fastest 28‑day window (ends ). Useful as a clue, not a promise.
6) Suspects: steps, “calories,” and the vanishing correlation
Here’s the detective trap: you see a clean weight curve and you assume one clean cause. The data argues back.
Tap a suspect. The scatterplot shows weekly weight change vs that metric. Correlation is not causation—yes. But lack of correlation is a kind of evidence too.
7) The underrated feat: maintenance
Most people can lose weight for a month. Fewer can keep it off once life gets bored. After , your weight hovers in a narrow band.
The chart draws a maintenance envelope—because once you’re in the endgame, the metric changes: it’s not “how fast can I drop?” It’s “how stable can I stay?”
8) A late clue: body fat % arrives after the plot twist
Body fat % appears only for days (Nov–Dec 2025). That’s too late to explain the cut. But it’s perfect for questioning the maintenance story: are you stable because you’re “done,” or because you built a system?
The body‑fat line is deliberately treated with suspicion: consumer BIA readings are sensitive to hydration and timing. So the chart emphasizes trend, not drama.
Open the evidence drawer (methods • coverage • caveats • downloads)
Method (changepoints): piecewise linear fit on 2025 daily weight series, selecting two changepoints that minimize total squared error with a minimum segment size. This is descriptive: it finds “where the story bends.”
Critical caveats:
• The “Calories (kcal)” field here is what Fit exported for energy expended, not food intake.
• Body fat % from consumer BIA devices can swing with hydration and timing; treat single-day values as noisy.
• Correlations are exploratory; they don’t prove causality.
External sanity checks (non‑data links): CDC and NHS both suggest gradual loss (often around 0.5–1 kg/week) as a common “sustainable” target. (Links: CDC, NHS)