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.
a person shows up and they have a normal fasting insulin say it's five and their fasting glucose is say 90. you challenge them with 75 to 100 grams of glucose but say 30 or 60 minutes later their fasting glucose is 200 their insulin is 70. we call that insulin resistance and we impute from that that something has broken down in the pathway that prevents their muscle from taking in glucose
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 first thing that really goes wrong here is the muscles take in less glucose and by extension the plasma insulin level has to rise to force that in so the first sign of this is normal levels of glucose going in but at a higher level of insulin so that's easy to miss
That is then when the muscle becomes insulin resistant you have lost access of the main glucose consumer.