Paul Saladino· MD
so do you think people should look at maybe what happens two hours after they eat a meal and if they're still elevated and having issues then then there might be something to look at
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.
so do you think people should look at maybe what happens two hours after they eat a meal and if they're still elevated and having issues then then there might be something to look at
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.
but if you're talking about your cgm yeah like elevation of your blood sugar after two hours is a problem
do you think people should look at maybe what happens two hours after they eat a meal and if they're still elevated and having issues then then there might be something to look at
if i checked two hours later and i was still at 140 then it sounds like that might be an issue exactly
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.