Can tracking your blood sugar make you fitter, stronger, and healthier?
Almost 2.4 million Americans wear continuous glucose monitors, or CGMs, to track their blood sugar—and not all of them have diabetes. More and more healthy people are wearing them to understand how food, exercise, and other factors impact blood sugar levels—and, by extension, the rest of their bodies. But are they worth the cost, or just another trendy health gadget? Hone Health investigates.
A randomized controlled trial published recently in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that blood sugar responses to the same meal may vary in an individual. In theory, this means the devices may not be very effective at helping us figure out what foods cause our glucose levels to spike, at least not consistently.
However, some experts disagree and think continuous glucose monitors can offer useful information, even to non-diabetics. So who are they good for, and what good can come from using them?
You don't need to monitor your blood sugar unless you're at an increased risk of developing prediabetes or diabetes. Most non-diabetics do so because they want to.
"For patients who are trying to lose weight, seeing what's happening in their body in real-time based on the food that they're eating can be beneficial to make better choices in the future," says Ari Eckman, M.D., an endocrinologist and expert in diabetes and metabolism.
Spikes in blood sugar after eating (called postprandial spikes) are normal, but frequent, super-high spikes can cause oxidative stress and increase inflammation, which can lead to a host of health issues.
Glucose spikes can also weaken blood vessels, cause plaque in the arteries, and increase insulin resistance and the risk of developing diabetes.
Big drops in blood sugar following a spike can trigger hunger, overeating, and weight gain.
For people without diabetes, the goal is to gather data, identify patterns, and make changes to your diet, exercise, and other lifestyle factors.
Glucose levels can fluctuate daily and spike for various reasons, not just following a carb-heavy meal. Inadequate hydration, certain medications, stress (including healthy stress on the body from exercise), illness, and hormonal fluctuations can all affect glucose levels.
Reveals impact of diet on blood sugar
CGMs can show minute-by-minute what happens to your blood sugar after you eat or drink something.
"I'm pretty trim, but I've gone from 210 pounds to 197 pounds in a month," says Bob Arnot, M.D. The former chief medical correspondent for NBC News doesn't have diabetes but has worn a CGM for the past year. "The most fun is seeing how particular foods wreck your blood sugar readings. Mine was a turkey sandwich with stuffing. My glucose was through the stratosphere."
Shows how exercise modulates blood sugar
Aerobic exercise typically leads to a more gradual decline in blood sugar levels, as muscles pull glucose from the blood for fuel.
However, HIIT, heavy lifting, or other strenuous forms of exercise cause the body to release stress hormones, which stimulate glucose production. A CGM can show users when these spikes occur during and after workouts.
More research is needed into how CGMs can provide exercise-related data to wearers who don't have diabetes.
One study found that CGMs may help athletes monitor whether they're fueling adequately, how best they can optimize their carb intake, and how to prevent energy crashes during training and competitions.
Most CGMs require a prescription. However, the FDA recently cleared the first over-the-counter CGM for purchase without a prescription, the Dexcom Stelo.
If you get one, Eckman says you should expect to spend about $50 to $150 on sensors every two weeks. The Dexcom Stelo costs $99 for a one-time purchase of two sensors, $89 for a monthly subscription, and $252 for a three-month supply.
Eckman says some insurance plans may cover a CGM if you don't have diabetes, and notes that they're eligible for FSA/HSA coverage.
A CGM has a small sensor that's inserted underneath the skin and secured with adhesive to your arm or stomach. A transmitter sends the collected data to a smartphone app or another receiver.
People with diabetes set alarms to let you know when your blood sugar levels are too high or too low, but non-diabetics likely won't need to do that, Eckman says.
CGMs measure glucose in the interstitial fluid, which surrounds the cells in your body. CGMs show the direction and rate of change of your glucose levels and calculate the percentage of time they stay within a target range.
"A CGM is just a tool," Arnot says. "It won't magically fix your diet or health. It requires effort, self-reflection, and a willingness to make changes."
Sometimes, there can be such a thing as too much information—and the research isn't totally conclusive yet. Research into the efficacy and reliability of CGMs is largely centered on the diabetic population, not on people who don't have diabetes.
Data is difficult to interpret
As a doctor, Arnot understands what all of the numbers his CGM gathers mean. Experts recommend that non-diabetics who use a CGM work with their physician to better understand the information being collected and then figure out what to do with it.
Some research has found CGMs regularly find different blood sugar reactions to the same foods meal-to-meal, even within the same person. Plus, glucose levels can fluctuate from day to day for reasons other than food and exercise.
"Without proper guidance, people might misinterpret normal glucose fluctuations, leading to unnecessary anxiety or unhealthy dietary restrictions," Arnot says.
Do continuous glucose monitors support hypoglycemia?
Some research has indicated that, in theory, a CGM could help people with hypoglycemia detect when their levels drop too low. Still, manufacturer websites state clearly their sensors have not been designed for and should not be used by people at risk for or who have hypoglycemia.
This story was produced by Hone Health and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Possible Medicaid cuts create deep sense of fear for Americans with disabilities
As the threat of cuts to Medicaid looms, Americans with disabilities are among those most at risk. Audrey Presby and Jeremy Fraser, co-hosts of "The Audrey and Jeremy Show" join Ali Vitali to share what these cuts could mean for them. Kandi Pickard, National Down Syndrome Society President and CEO, also weighs in.


Business Wire
an hour ago
- Business Wire
Alliance for Food and Farming: 'Dirty Dozen' List Recommendations Cannot Be Substantiated
WATSONVILLE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Peer reviewed research published in the Journal of Toxicology found that the recommendation in the 'Dirty Dozen' list to substitute organic forms of produce for conventional does not result in any decrease in risk for consumers because residues on conventionally grown are so low, if present at all. The research also found that the list authors follow no scientifically established methodology in the development of their list. In fact, the 'Dirty Dozen' list authors admit that their list does not assess risk nor do they apply basic tenets of toxicology in the development of their list. From Environmental Working Group's (EWG) previous 'Dirty Dozen' report: 'The Shoppers Guide does not incorporate risk assessment into the calculations. All pesticides are weighted equally, and we do not factor in the levels deemed acceptable by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).' Further, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) consistently finds that over 99% of foods sampled had residue levels well below EPA safety standards with 40% having no detectable residues at all. There is growing concern about the impact of inaccurate safety fears becoming a barrier to increased consumption of produce. One peer reviewed study found that when low income consumers were exposed to 'Dirty Dozen' list messaging, they stated they were less likely to purchase any produce – organic or conventional. In a report released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), only one in 10 Americans consume enough fruits and vegetables each day, which is unchanged from previous survey levels announced almost a decade ago. The report states that those living below or close to the poverty level were the least likely to meet produce recommendations. From the CDC: 'Continued efforts to increase fruit and vegetable consumption by improving access and affordability in diverse community and institutional settings will help mitigate health disparities among U.S. residents. Additional policies and programs that will increase access to fruits and vegetables in places where U.S. residents live, learn, work, and play, might increase consumption and improve health.' 'Consumers can and should disregard these types of lists,' says Dr. Sylvia Klinger, DBA, MS, RD, founder of Hispanic and Multicultural Nutrition Communications who serves on the AFF's Management Board. 'Simply follow the advice of dietitians and health experts and choose to eat more fruits and vegetables, which are rich in the vitamins and antioxidants that help our bodies fight and prevent diseases, improve overall health and increase lifespan.' For consumers who are still concerned about residues, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that washing fruits and vegetables under running tap water often removes or eliminates any residues that may be present. (Never use soaps or detergents to wash produce.) Learn more about the safety of all produce at The Alliance for Food and Farming is a non-profit organization formed in 1989 which represents organic and conventional farmers. Alliance contributors are limited to farmers of fruits and vegetables, companies that sell, market or ship fruits and vegetables or organizations that represent produce farmers. Our mission is to deliver credible information about the safety of fruits and vegetables.