The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
so he also showed in that study that non-diabetic individuals when you have a CGM on are going into the diabetic range and the pre-diabetic range a fairly significant amount and we would never know that if you weren't um if you weren't actually tracking like a movie of the glucose
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I feel like I've learned more about blood sugar in a week of wearing this device, than I knew about in my entire life before then. Now, I should say, I'm not diabetic, I'm not prediabetic, so really, like, under the sort of the traditional paradigm of how we diagnose and treat diseases, there was no reason for me to know what my blood sugar is. But I'm realizing now, like, honestly, like realizing now that, like, there is
so you can see the great difference between mine including carbohydrates in my diet and people who are metabolically unhealthy now we wouldn't expect me to be metabolically unhealthy with a fasting insulin less than three which is why i believe that test is so important for humans
This is why I really appreciate continuous glucose monitors, and I believe they're valuable for everyone, even people who are not type 1 diabetics on adjunctive insulin, even type 2 diabetics I think should have them, even people who are non-diagnosed diabetics should have them.
And we see a lot of people who have normal metrics and show up with the CGM and it doesn't look as normal or as healthy as we might have anticipated.
Um, and and that's what we see is we see a lot of people who have normal metrics and show up with the CGM and it doesn't look as normal or as healthy as we might have anticipated.
I strongly believe that these are incredibly useful for this population of individuals.
even those in evidently good metabolic health may benefit from the use of CGM.
in our practice we use cgm a lot so continuous glucose monitoring is kind of you know we don't you know non-diabetics are wearing cgm like it's no tomorrow in our practice because of that exact reason we're basically holding them to a very high standard of average glucose and high excursions and all these sorts of things
and do you maybe just kind of want to walk through people you kind of hinted at there but what you look for with cgms and ultimately what people if someone's wearing one because it seems like it is more widely available for non-diabetics now and so you see a lot more of them around so if someone gets one what are some of the things you like to see within patients what are some of the things you look at kind of how do you use it I mean we still look for the same things
Well, I think everybody should wear one.
So these monitors are great for discovering people who have glucose dysregulation, but it doesn't show up by normal means.
Post-meal glucose spikes in non-diabetics drive long-term cardiometabolic disease independently of HbA1c.
Wearing a continuous glucose monitor leads to personalized dietary improvements that hold up beyond 12 weeks.
Continuous glucose monitors meaningfully change behavior in non-diabetic adults beyond the first month.
CGM use in metabolically healthy adults induces orthorexic-style dietary anxiety without health benefit.