Paul Saladino· MD
Like Cara said, having real time feedback is how we change behavior.
Loading…
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.
Like Cara said, having real time feedback is how we change behavior.
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.
Incredible feedback on tight cycles leads to lots of iterations and improvements.
the first is and this gets to the point we made with the CGM which is real-time feedback is awesome take away real-time feedback it's hard to do anything
I think it's very difficult to curb a person's behavior when the feedback loop is so long and the weight on the scale the blood test that you get at your doctor every six months those things are valuable they help but nothing Trump's the 30 minutes after I eat the chocolate-covered raisins hey I see what it looks like
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.