Paul Saladino· MD
the goal the consensus is try and have lows no more than 5% and you want to reduce your highs as well and try and stay in range a minimum of 70% of your 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.
the goal the consensus is try and have lows no more than 5% and you want to reduce your highs as well and try and stay in range a minimum of 70% of your 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.
most type ones using multiple daily injections which is what I do there's no pump here they are somewhere between like 50 and 60% this is in published research where this has been studied 50 to 60 percent now people using a pump they get a little bit better and then people using a closed-loop system so that's an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor speaking to each other and making micro adjustments throughout the day you know primarily overnight which is a major improvement in people's timing range and their a1c there seeing you know an average of about 70% of time and range
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.