yes, exactly the point of getting one so you go from general info about everyone to specifics about your body. it is interesting!
thanks for sharing, Stranger!
Oh! Meant to share this article I found!
Meta analysis of non diabetics finding a correlation of higher risk of future cardiovascular disease between the quartile with the highest post challenge blood sugar response (150 to 194) and the lowest (69-107) by 19% when other known risk factors were controlled for. So from a CVD POV better to be one with smallest swings than the biggest ones; still unclear if there is causation or if it is marker of other processes.
Yep. I’m not going to read too much into things as of yet. I have a “just-so” interpretation but I’m not going to pretend that I (or anyone) can look at the chart and say it’s absolutely good or bad. But it is interesting to correlate what’s on the chart with my activities and schedule.
I do hope that the prevalence of cheap, non-prescription CGMs will drive better understanding of diabetes progression and healthy habits.
I won’t be updating the charts every day but I’ll definitely put out a 14-day summary when the battery dies. I’m sure it’ll be interesting for one reason or another.
And, part of my overall health-related motivation here is to establish some baselines to track how they change. I’ve been doing this with weight for years, and try to keep track of my blood pressure. I figured I’d add a few metrics to the tracking. The absolute numbers aren’t as important as keeping an eye on changes.
Glad you and others find it interesting! But FYI, I’m Strangelove, not Stranger 
(Stranger_On_A_Train has some overlapping interests but I’m not him!).
If anyone else wants to try a CGM, I can recommend the Dexcom Stelo at this point. I haven’t yet done a 1-to-1 calibration vs. finger stick but the results look consistent with what I’d seen earlier. The phone app works well and I can download the raw data from their website. That makes me happy since a lot of these sorts of things like to keep your data from you! The device was also easy to apply and seems reliable so far. A tiny bit of soreness the first day but I don’t notice it now.
My fear is that too many are making assumptions about what the numbers and curve shapes mean, and many acting based on those assumptions. There is already an industry selling alleged “custom diet” plans based on “optimizing” the curves reported by CGMs in particular, as if it is definitive fact that creating flatter curves within a normal range has causation on future outcome. Zoe is perhaps leading the list but it isn’t alone. Meanwhile we don’t even know what the normal distribution is yet!
Better understanding resulting from the prevalence of cheap, non-prescription CGMs cannot drive better understanding of diabetes progression and healthy habits when so many are already sure that they already know the answers.
You are clearly smart enough to know better. Unfortunately I think you are exceptional in this regard.
So yeah it is cool. Using it as the basis to modify an otherwise healthy nutrition and exercise plan is however premature. Look even in this thread. I am hopeful that @puzzlegal didn’t stop strength training based on it not showing immediate impacts of her BG curves; but some will. And their overall health will be negatively impacted by that action.
sorry about that, Strangelove!
I actually know a type I diabetic who does not have a CGM, which he absolutely should, and I’m unclear if his insurance wouldn’t pay for it or if he just couldn’t be bothered to ask.
But for the people I know who are looking into this - everything from “normal” to type 2 diabetics, they are very interested in learning how their body, specifically, reacts to various things.
Well, if i had taken up strength training in the hopes that it would improve my blood glucose profile, i suppose i might have. But i took up strength training years ago (when my blood glucose was totally normal) for reasons having nothing to do with blood glucose, and all those reasons remain valid. So it would be asinine to drop it just because it doesn’t also do something i never expected to get from it. I was just a little surprised, and found it interesting.
What I mean is that researchers potentially have a wealth of new data. Dexcom says they don’t sell your data but they do use it for internal research, and so they could potentially publish papers on what is actually normal for non-diabetics. Learning more about “normal variation” could at least inform doctors, who could then inform their patients. Granted, there are several levels of indirection here…
How long are you gonna wear it?
Until the battery dies, which is about 2 weeks. Unless it becomes really uncomfortable or something, I guess, but so far I barely notice it.
It came in a 2-pack, and the shelf life is >1 year, so I’ll save the other one for another check a year from now.
The Dexcom G7 I wore had a ten day life with a 12 hour “grace period” before the app refused to continue to report from that unit.
Yes that is true for you.
As you note however
Some people do. And some people are getting the impression that whatever flattens their glucose curves must be the best thing for their overall long term health.
Strength training (resistance exercise) as part of a balanced fitness program is unequivocally good for our long term health and for glucose control. And your curves response to it is fairly typical. The same happens frequently in other intense anaerobic exercise as well: there is a release of catecholamines which releases glucose into the blood from liver glycogen stores. Insulin response lags, is partly driven in response to that spike. It then brings the glucose level down and drives the anabolic muscle response (good) to the strength training. Over time muscle insulin sensitivity and mass increases, which reduces future risk of diabetes and prediabetes. The rise in glucose level is actually desired by some for its role in causing the insulin and hence muscle response. I believe @Dr_Paprika at some point shared how he imbibes a form of sugar after lifting just for this purpose. Can’t find it on a quick search though.
That spike with strength training is not unhealthy for a non diabetic. It is the normal process. And overtime strength training lowers hgbA1c. AND has a myriad of other benefits increasing current health and function and longer term healthspan.
But a myopic view on the glucose curve looking at immediate cause and effect doesn’t see any of that. Strength training spiked my glucose. Bad. (Not you.)
Found it!
FWIW.
Unfortunately, the Stelo app encourages this. Last night (after I ate) it reported a “glucose spike” with tips on reducing it. The tips weren’t totally awful; mostly the normal stuff like eating more fiber and getting exercise (and meditation?). But the “glucose spike” in question was just 87->126. Seems like a pretty normal response to a meal. Encouraging people to exercise is one thing, but this seems to be convincing people that their curves must be absolutely flat.
Yes, strength training is an important part of an overall fitness program.
No, i didn’t get a glucose spike while doing it. Really, it had little impact one way or the other.
If I’d taken up strength training for the sole purpose of improving my glucose levels, i think it would be right to quit. Because all of us only have so much energy to devote to any project, and strength training is not the best way to improve blood glucose levels. Spending the same amount of time doing aerobic exercise (also an important part of an overall fitness program) would be more helpful. I mean, if i happened to already be doing tons of aerobic exercise, maybe that’s not true, but for most of us, it is. Personally, i probably would benefit more from adding aerobic than strength expertise, mostly because i mildly enjoy strength training and actively dislike aerobic exercise, so i don’t do enough of the letter. This is an example of the cgm giving useful information, not misleading information.
An example of misleading information is that i found that eating rice & beans routinely spikes my glucose, pretty hard. But then it drops rapidly afterwards. If i stopped eating bean dinners as a result, that would be a bad outcome, because bean dinners are one of the healthier dinners i eat, based on everything else i know about nutrition. And i doubt that a brief, transient spike in blood glucose (which spikes above my norm, but only to about 160) is harmful. At any rate, I’m not going to worry about it and I’m not going to stop eating beans, even though i usually eat them with rice.
But i don’t think this is intrinsically bad information. It’s information. Some of it is actionable, and some isn’t. IMHO, a good doctor gives context rather than withholding information.
Yeah, it does seem to care more about how fast the glucose increases than by how much it increases or how long it stays high, which seems weird. I’m dubious that that’s a metric i should be concerned about.
Fwiw, meditation does reduce my glucose levels.
Yes. I agree. Mental stability does help your glucose, a bit. So meditation sounds good to me.
I try to stay calm and level headed. But its not always easy for me. I’m a bit flighty.
The CGM is a god send. No doubt. But it has limitations like all our aids/crutches.
You use common sense. I have issues with this, Ivy helps me here, the most.
I get confused early in a BG event. Confusion does not play well with decision making.
A bold and incorrect claim. Lots of citations available actually. Both work. Strength training actually seems a bit better. Combined likely even more (albeit not an arm in the RCT below)
In pre-diabetes, both resistance and aerobic exercise can control and reverse IGR. The effect of resistance exercise on GSP and IR improvement may be superior to that of aerobic exercise. Resistance exercise resulted in more individual differences in the control of the mean blood glucose levels compared with aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise decreased blood glucose levels through weight loss. In contrast, the improvement in blood glucose and IR by resistance exercise in IGR might not be mediated via weight loss and obesity control. This suggested that a better exercise intervention mode might combine resistance exercise with aerobic exercise in pre-diabetes compared with traditional aerobic exercise intervention alone. Moreover, resistance exercise might be more important for certain individuals with severe IR.
Pathologizing normal is usually not helpful.
The other point that I really want to make sure doesn’t get lost is that shining a light on one metric encourages many to focus on that metric above others that are perhaps harder to measure in real time but more important to the actual goal of improved current function and healthspan.
Eh, according to your quote, the “traditional” intervention is “aerobic exercise alone”. And all my diabetic friends actively use aerobic exercise to reduce blood sugar right now. It doesn’t just work by reducing weight.
I’m sure that, as with basically every other measure of health, some mix of aerobic and strength exercise is better for long term success than either one exclusively. But the CGM called me out for not getting enough aerobic exercise, and that’s useful info.
I agree that focusing on a single metric to the exclusion of others is unhelpful and unhealthy. I feel like “bmi” has been that single metric for quite some time, now. If blood glucose supplements weight, it might be a net win.
On the subject of exercise, its my understanding that high intensity interval training works better for cardiovascular health and glucose control than steady state aerobics.
Another thing that supposedly works for glucose control is instead of doing one long workout session, do a 10-20 minute workout session an hour after each major meal. So instead of walking 30-60 minutes a day, its better to walk for 10-20 minutes, but to time it so you do it an hour after each of the 3 main meals. Supposedly that controls blood sugar better too, but I don’t know how much its been studied. However thats about when blood sugar spikes after a meal.
Also as far as BMI, its also my understanding that waist to height radio is a better predictor of the health effects of obesity.
There are at least 3 types of fat in the human body. subcutaneous, visceral and intramuscular.
Subcutaneous fat is the kind of fat that collects under the skin. Its the kind of fat that gives people flabby arms and big butts. But its not really super harmful to the body aside from things like sleep apnea, putting strain on the joints, etc.
Visceral fat is the fat that collects in and around the internal organs of the torso. The liver, pancreas, digestive system, heart, etc. This is the fat that supposedly causes most of the health effects of obesity.
A waist that is 50% the size of your height is ideal. Risks start to go up from there, so if you’re 70" tall, a waist of 35" is ideal.
The risks of a waist 51-60% the size of your height aren’t that bad, but they grow dramatically after that.