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.
the problem with these is that they're kind of have a variable baseline sometimes they're high but they could also be low so when i've done these in the past you put it on and you're like my fasting budget is 110 what the heck's going on then you do a finger stick and you're passing a bunch of 80.
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.
now that about a third of my patients are using CGM and it's being calibrated so we're using the Dexcom because it's much more accurate than the libra and it can be forced calibrated
the way the CGM works is you measure the average glucose which is actually all that matters but you can impute the a1c
it's obviously the latter that is much more interesting because you're directly measuring the variable of interest
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.