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.
gamifying things can be beneficial right it's why a CGM can can be beneficial because it's sort of like somebody's watching you and you're going to modify what you eat in response to it or why tracking can really be an effective way to reduce input because you there's a sense of being monitored by doing that
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.
and why — gamifying things can be beneficial right it's why a CGM can can be beneficial because it's sort of like somebody's watching you and you're going to modify what you eat in response to it or why tracking can really be an effective way to reduce input because you there's a sense of being monitored by doing that especially if someone literally monitors it
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.