We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
I've largely discounted hemoglobin a1c in an absolute sense as a meaningful number I think it's you know it's directionally tolerable but mostly and I know that because now I've used CGM in so many patients with calibration and compared to a1c and you realize that the a1c is really at the mercy of its most important assumption which is a red blood cell lives for 90 to 120 days
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've largely discounted hemoglobin A1C in an absolute sense as a meaningful number. I think it's directionally tolerable, but mostly shit.
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.