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.
And a CGM is a really unique and interesting tool that can help capture some of those deviations before we cross that threshold that metabolic spectrum into diabetes so that we can make some tweaks and really improve how our glucose is looking before we're too far down the line.
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.
But there's actually different ways to have different glucose dysregulation. My own belief is diabetes is probably 50 different diseases when you lump it all together into one or two, basically, whether you have type 1 or type 2. And the reality is there's many subtypes. I'm a very unusual type 2 diabetic, actually. 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.