Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
Blood Sugar Tracking: My Surprising Month-Long Wellness Journey
(upbeat music) - Welcome to Listen To, this is Ted. The news was published on Sunday, September 29th. Joining us today are Eric and Kate to discuss continuous glucose monitoring. Let's dive right in. Eric, can you explain what a CGM is and how it differs from traditional blood sugar testing? - Sure thing, Ted. A CGM or continuous glucose monitor is like having a tiny high-tech detective under your skin. It's constantly on the job measuring your blood sugar levels 24/7. Unlike those annoying fingerprint tests that give you a snapshot, a CGM gives you the whole movie of what's happening with your glucose. The stello, which is the star of our show today, is pretty special because you don't need a doctor's permission slip to get one. - While that might sound cool and all, let's pump the brakes a bit. Not everyone needs to be playing Sherlock Holmes with their blood sugar. - But Kate, that's exactly why this tech is so exciting. It's not about needing it. It's about the potential benefits of having this information at your fingertips. Think about how many people could catch potential health issues early on. - I get that, Eric, but we're talking about turning people into walking science experiments. The journalist in this article was freaking out over every little blip on her glucose radar. Is that really healthy? - Interesting points, both of you. Kate, you mentioned the journalist's reactions. Can you elaborate on some of the surprising findings she had? - Sure, Ted, get this. She chowed down on what she thought was a super healthy vegan bowl, you know, the kind of thing Instagram influencers post about. Bam. Her blood sugar went through the roof, but then plot twist, she has some wine and popcorn, total junk food night, and her levels barely budged. It just goes to show our bodies are as unpredictable as a cat in a room full of cucumbers. - That unpredictability is precisely why CGMs can be so valuable, Kate. It's like having a personal nutritionist living in your arm, giving you the inside scoop on how your body responds to different foods. This kind of personalized data could be a game changer for people trying to make healthier choices. - But at what cost, Eric? We're talking about turning every meal into a math problem. The author was stressing out about her readings. Do we read-- - I hear you, Kate, but consider the alternative. Isn't a little short-term stress worth it if it means preventing long-term health issues? This technology could be a powerful weapon in our fight against chronic diseases like-- - Powerful weapon. More like a money-sucking gadget. Have you seen the price tag on these things? $99 a month. That's a chunk of change for most folks, especially when we don't even know if it's doing any good for non-diabetics. - I understand the cost concern, Kate, but we need to look at the bigger picture. Think about the potential savings in healthcare costs down the line if we can prevent or delay chronic diseases. It's an investment in future health. - An investment? Come on, Eric, we both know that knowing what to do and actually doing it are two very different things. How many people buy gym memberships and-- - But that's exactly why this real-time feedback is so powerful, Kate. It's not just abstract advice. It's immediate personalized data that can motivate real change. It's like having a health coach with you. You both raise compelling points. Let's shift gears a bit. Eric, how do you think widespread adoption of CGM's might impact public health on a broader scale? - Great question, Ted. I believe we're on the cusp of a health revolution. Imagine a world where millions of people have access to real-time data about their metabolic health. We could see a dramatic reduction in the rates of Type II, diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic disorders. It's not just about individual health. This could significantly reduce the burden on our healthcare system. - That's a pretty rosy picture, Eric. But let's be real. We're talking about turning everyone into amateur endocrinologists. There's a real risk of people misinterpreting this data, causing unnecessary panic or worse, ignoring real problems because their numbers look okay. - Interesting perspectives. Now let's consider a historical parallel. Eric, can you think of a similar technological advancement in healthcare that initially faced skepticism, but later became widely accepted? - Absolutely, Ted. The home pregnancy test is a perfect example. When it hit the market in the '70s, it was super controversial. Doctors were clutching their pearls, worried that women couldn't handle that kind of information without a medical degree. Fast forward to today, and it's as normal as buying toothpaste. - Hold up, Eric. That's not quite the same ballgame. A pregnancy test is a simple yes or no. This glucose stuff is way more complicated. - I get where you're coming from, Kate, but the principle is the same. Both technologies put health information directly in people's hands. It's about empowering individuals to take control of the health. - But a pregnancy test is a one and done deal. You're not constantly peeing on sticks and logging what you had for lunch. CGM's require ongoing costs and could lead to people obsessing over every little blip in their numbers. - Interesting comparison. Kate, how do you think the adoption of CGM's might differ from the home pregnancy test? - Well, Ted, it's like comparing apples and, I don't know, rocket ships. CGM's are asking for a much bigger commitment. You're basically turning yourself into a walking science experiment. It's not just about peeing on a stick once, it's about wearing a device 24/7, playing food detective with every meal and potentially freaking out over every little spike. It's a whole different level of involvement. But Kate, that level of involvement is exactly what makes it so powerful. Just like the pregnancy test revolutionized women's health, CGM's could transform how we approach metabolic health. It's about giving people the tools to-- - Tools or weapons of mass anxiety. We're talking about unleashing a tidal wave of worried well people flooding doctor's offices because their glucose went up after eating a cookie. - I understand your concern, Kate, but that's why education is crucial. Just as we learn to interpret pregnancy tests correctly, we can learn to understand our glucose data in context. It's about empowering people with knowledge, not creating panic. - Education, and who's going to provide that? The company's selling these devices. That's like letting the Fox guard the hen house. They have a vested interest. - Come on, Kate, give people some credit. We've adapted to new health technologies before and we can do it again. The potential benefits for-- - Both of you raise valid points about the potential benefits and drawbacks. As we wrap up, let's consider two potential future scenarios for CGM technology. Eric, how do you see this technology developing in a positive direction? - I'm glad you asked, Ted, picture this. In a few years, CGM's could be as common as fitness trackers. They'll be more affordable, less invasive, maybe even as simple as a smart patch on your skin. Imagine the impact we could catch diabetes and other metabolic disorders early, potentially saving millions of lives and billions in healthcare costs. It's not just about individual health. You know, we're talking about a fundamental shift in how we approach preventive medicine. - Wow, Eric, that's quite the utopian vision. But let me paint you a different picture. I see a future where we've created a new breed of health anxiety. People obsessing over every little glucose wiggle, panicking if their numbers aren't perfect. We might see a rise in unnecessary medical interventions and let's not forget, only the well-off will be able to afford this constant monitoring. We're potentially creating a two-tiered health system where some people have access to this data and others don't. How's that for progress? - I hear your concerns, Kate, but don't you think more information could lead to better health outcomes overall? Knowledge is power. People might be motivated to make healthier choices. - Or they might become totally demoralized when they see that their efforts don't yield perfect numbers. Not everyone has the luxury of optimizing every meal or taking a leisurely stroll after eating Eric. We live in the real world, not a health spot. - Both perspectives are compelling. Eric, how would you address Kate's concerns about health anxiety and disparities? - Those are valid concerns, Kate, and I don't want to dismiss them, but I believe they can be addressed through proper education and as costs decrease over time. Look at how smartphones evolved. At first, they were expensive and complex, but now they're accessible to almost everyone. ICCGMs following a similar path, as the technology improves and becomes more widespread, it'll become more affordable and user-friendly. - But in the meantime, we're potentially creating a massive divide in healthcare. Some people will have access to all this fancy data, while others are left in the dark. That's not just-- - I understand your point, Kate, but isn't it better to have the technology available to some rather than no one? - Many innovations start with early adopters before becoming mainstream. Think about how many lives could be improved or even saved across. - At what cost though? We're talking about potentially overwhelming our healthcare system with worried well people, not to mention the toll on mental health. Is the pursuit of perfect numbers really worth all that? - You've both presented compelling arguments for how CGM technology might evolve. It's clear there are exciting possibilities and important concerns to consider as this technology becomes more widespread. Thank you both for this insightful discussion. This has been Ted with Listen2, signing off.