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.
it's the mean or the median amplitude glucose excursions the mages if with this - yeah yeah yeah yeah a little bit yeah it's basically the idea that that postprandial glucose excursions are more predictive than overall glucose and yeah area under the curve yeah yeah
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.
if you're very low risk and you know everything else looks great and you know you have a track score of zero and you know good body composition and sleep well and all that you know all that kind of stuff then I would suggest maybe a limit of 50 or 60 would probably be fine yeah
if you're very low risk and you know everything else looks great and you know you have a track score of zero and you know good body composition and sleep well and all that you know all that kind of stuff then I would suggest maybe a limit of 50 or 60 would probably be fine
if I thought that you were high risk and there's some data suggest this then I think that you should Target a mage less than 40 maybe less than 30.
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.