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.
for instance but they had they had fairly lenient cutoff so they're cutoff for poor glucose regulation was a hundred milligrams per deciliter fasting glucose we already know it's too late by the time you thought your your fasting glucose is about 100 milligrams per deciliter you're already in trouble
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.
the other thing with fasting glucose by the way that's kind of useless is it's helpful if your fasting glucose is 150 there's clearly a problem but I get patients that get you know very upset or phosphorylated if their fasting glucose is 105
The other thing with fasting glucose, by the way, that's kind of useless is it's helpful if your fasting glucose is 150. There's clearly a problem. But I get patients that get very upset or phosphorylated if their fasting glucose is 105.