Rooted

Two minutes · no email required

Was your elimination actually readable?

You cut something. You stuck to it. You got an answer that fell apart later, and somewhere in there you started to suspect the problem was you.

This checks the conditions the experiment ran under — not the food, and not you.

A 21-day trial against a 28-day cycle

The trial ended 7 days before the cycle did — so the window where symptoms most often cluster was never inside the experiment. Whatever the result said, it could not have accounted for those days.

The check

Six questions about how you ran it.

Describe the experiment you ran

Six questions about the conditions, not about the food. Nothing is stored or sent anywhere.

Did you score your symptoms every day?
Did you write your cycle day next to each score?
How is your cycle these days?

Answer the three questions above to get a read.

The read appears here

Three weeks is shorter than one cycle.

That sentence is the whole tool. If an elimination ran for less time than a full cycle — or ran without the cycle day written down beside the symptom scores — then the result it gave you couldn't have been trustworthy, however carefully you stuck to it.

Fill in the conditions on the left and I'll tell you which of the three it was.

The three verdicts

Most eliminations land in the first two.

That isn't a comment on the women running them. It's what happens when every protocol on the internet is written as though a baseline holds still for three weeks.

  • Not readable

    It ran for less than one full cycle. The window closed before a comparison could exist, so the answer was noise however carefully you stuck to it.

  • Ambiguous

    It ran long enough, but symptoms weren't scored daily or the cycle day wasn't recorded beside them. Arguable results are how a food stays on the fear list for years.

  • Readable

    Daily scores, two or more full cycles, cycle day recorded. Rare, and worth keeping — that result is a head start rather than something to repeat.

What to do about it

Don't run it again. Set it up so it can answer.

Re-running an unreadable experiment gets you the same ambiguous result and costs another six months — and another six months is another round of foods added to the list you're afraid of.

Chart first. Then challenge the food at a set dose, inside a window where the reading can be trusted. That order is the entire method, and the first half of it is free.