Paul Saladino· MD
Um, but some people, 10% of individuals spent at least 2 hours above that range. And 2 hours is a very significant amount of time.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Um, but some people, 10% of individuals spent at least 2 hours above that range. And 2 hours is a very significant amount of time.
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.
The title of the study is real-life glycemic profiles in non-diabetic individuals with low fasting glucose and normal hemoglobin A1C. Uh, this is the perfect study, the A1C derived average glucose ADAG study. First author is R. Borg. So, when we do real life looking at this kind of stuff, what do we see, Cara? Yeah, so this study in particular found that uh, 93% of individuals reached above that 140 threshold that we were kind of looking for. And so, that's that's a pretty high percentage of people, average 26 minutes a day, which is similar to the other one we saw of about 30 minutes a day.
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.