Inside the Year I Wore Continuous Glucose Monitors as a Non-Diabetic: What It Revealed—and the Anxiety It Triggered

When journalist Victoria Song first peeled open the packaging of a Dexcom Stelo and Abbott Lingo continuous glucose monitor (CGM) last spring, she had no idea her year-long experiment would become a rollercoaster of metabolic self-discovery, medical appointments, and crippling anxiety. Neither device was prescribed—both were over-the-counter options marketed to non-diabetics curious about how their diet, sleep, and stress levels affect blood sugar. What started as professional curiosity quickly spiraled into a deeply personal journey through the promises and pitfalls of the booming CGM industry, a sector now valued at over $10 billion and projected to double by 2030.

What Are Continuous Glucose Monitors and How Did They Escape the Pharmacy?

Continuous glucose monitors were originally designed for people with Type 1 diabetes—those who produce little to no insulin and must constantly track their blood sugar to avoid life-threatening complications. The FDA first cleared a professional-use CGM in 1999, but these devices required a prescription and were implanted by medical professionals. Fast forward to 2024, and both Abbott and Dexcom launched over-the-counter CGMs specifically targeting non-diabetics, prediabetics, and Type 2 diabetics not using insulin. Marketed as “glucose biosensors,” these devices promise real-time insights into how food, exercise, and sleep impact metabolic health—without the need for a doctor’s note.

The Medical Stakes: Who Really Benefits from CGM Use?

The clinical benefits of CGMs are clear for people with prediabetes or Type 2 diabetes. Unlike Type 1 diabetes, which is an autoimmune condition, Type 2 diabetes develops gradually as the body becomes resistant to insulin. Early detection through CGMs can enable lifestyle changes—diet, exercise, weight loss—that may reverse the condition before it requires medication. According to the American Diabetes Association, as of 2021, Type 2 diabetes accounts for roughly 95% of the 38.4 million Americans with diabetes, while an estimated 98 million have prediabetes. For these individuals, CGMs can be a lifeline. But for non-diabetics without insulin resistance, the picture is far murkier.

The Political Push for Widespread CGM Adoption

The push to normalize CGMs extends beyond Silicon Valley wellness influencers. Health Secretary RFK Jr. has publicly advocated for universal CGM use within a decade, arguing that widespread metabolic tracking could curb the diabetes epidemic. His vision aligns with that of Casey Means, cofounder of Levels Health and former surgeon general nominee under Donald Trump. In her book Good Energy, Means positions CGMs as a tool to combat chronic metabolic dysfunction, claiming that poor glucose regulation underpins nearly every modern ailment. However, the scientific consensus remains cautious. Multiple medical experts have questioned the validity of CGM data for non-diabetics, citing a lack of longitudinal studies and standardized interpretation guidelines.

A Journalist’s Year in the Trenches of Glucose Tracking

Song’s journey began with a simple question: Could CGMs help her manage her family history of Type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? PCOS is a hormonal disorder linked to insulin resistance, which increases diabetes risk. As a long-distance runner, she also struggled with energy crashes during training, despite following standard fueling protocols. After applying the Dexcom Stelo to her right arm and Abbott Lingo to her left, she launched an experiment that would consume her life for the next 12 months.

The Ritual of Application and the Illusion of Painlessness

Applying a CGM is a ritual: clean the skin with isopropyl alcohol, press the applicator against the arm, and press a button that emits a ka-thunk sound. The needle inserts a tiny filament just beneath the skin to measure glucose in the interstitial fluid—though not directly in the bloodstream. Unlike finger-stick tests, which require a drop of blood, CGMs provide real-time trends over days or weeks. For Song, the process was painless, but the psychological weight of constant monitoring was immediate. She quickly became hyper-aware of her sleeve choices, avoiding anything that might snag the sensors during daily activities.

Data Overload: When Metrics Become an Obsession

In the early weeks, Song reviewed her glucose data religiously—every morning, after meals, and post-workout. The Dexcom app sent spike alerts if her glucose exceeded 140 mg/dL, while Abbott’s Lingo opted for a simplified “Lingo Score” to rate her performance. She noticed patterns: pasta caused spikes, salmon and salad did not, and carb-loading before long runs led to dramatic surges followed by crashes. But the most unsettling discovery came at 3 AM. Multiple times, her Dexcom app buzzed with alerts for overnight spikes, even when she hadn’t eaten late. Her fasting glucose consistently hovered above 100 mg/dL—borderline prediabetic territory.

The Psychological Toll: Anxiety in the Age of Biohacking

What began as curiosity morphed into dread. Song’s anxiety spiraled as she fixated on the “Dawn Phenomenon”—a natural rise in blood sugar in the early morning to prepare the body for wakefulness. In people with insulin resistance, however, this can lead to dangerously high levels. She scheduled urgent doctor appointments, underwent blood tests, and even had an ultrasound to check for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a condition linked to insulin resistance and PCOS. The ultrasound revealed mild NAFLD, but her A1C—a three-month average of blood sugar—remained normal. Her doctor advised weight loss and alcohol avoidance, advice she’d heard for years.

The Data Dilemma: When Sensors and Doctors Disagree

Song’s experience highlights a critical flaw in the CGM ecosystem: the lack of consensus among medical professionals on how to interpret the data. Dr. Nicole Spartano, an assistant professor at Boston University’s School of Medicine, conducted a study where 18 endocrinologists evaluated CGM reports from non-diabetics. The results? No consensus. Some doctors viewed glucose spikes as benign physiological variations, while others saw them as red flags for prediabetes. “We don’t have an ideal way of analyzing the information yet,” Spartano admits. “We know if someone is doing really poorly or completely normally, but the people that seem to be headed for trouble? We can only say, ‘It doesn’t look normal, but it’s not abnormal.’”

The Accuracy Problem: Why Two CGMs Can Tell Two Different Stories

Even the accuracy of CGMs is up for debate. Dr. David Klonoff, medical director at the Diabetes Research Institute, warns that while CGMs meet FDA accuracy standards, they’re not infallible. “The FDA requires a certain level of accuracy, but that still leaves some wiggle room,” he explains. Song experienced this firsthand when her Dexcom and Lingo sensors often reported conflicting glucose levels. Side sleeping, she later learned, could compress the sensor and skew readings. Compression can cause glucose values to appear artificially high or low, depending on the device’s placement. “If you wear two CGMs simultaneously, it’s possible to get different numbers and not know which one is truly correct,” Klonoff notes.

The Financial and Practical Burdens of Wearable Metabolic Tracking

Beyond the psychological strain, CGMs carry a significant financial and logistical cost. A single Abbott Lingo or Dexcom Stelo sensor lasts about 15 days and costs roughly $100 per month out-of-pocket. Malfunctions are common—Song’s sensors frequently detached after snagging on clothing or doorframes, and the adhesive left stubborn residue that took weeks to remove. To stretch her supply and give her skin breaks, she reduced usage to two weeks per month after six months, then once per quarter. For most Americans, this price tag is prohibitive, especially without insurance coverage.

Could CGMs Be a Double-Edged Sword for Metabolic Health?

Despite the challenges, CGMs are undeniably reshaping how people approach metabolic health. Companies like January AI (which pivoted from CGMs to glucose-predictive meal logging) and Oura (partnering with Dexcom) are integrating glucose tracking into broader wellness ecosystems. The trend aligns with the resurgence of diet culture and the booming GLP-1 drug market, where medications like Ozempic and Wegovy target insulin resistance. Dr. Thomas Grace, a diabetes clinician who consulted with Dexcom, sees promise in the instant feedback CGMs provide. “I think the most exciting thing is the understanding of how food, activity, stress, and sleep affect glucose health,” he says. For people with prediabetes or early insulin resistance, this real-time data could be transformative.

Key Takeaways: What Non-Diabetics Should Know Before Sticking to a CGM

• CGMs were originally designed for diabetics but are now marketed to non-diabetics, prediabetics, and athletes as tools for metabolic optimization.
• The data from CGMs can be inconsistent and is often misinterpreted, even by medical professionals, leading to unnecessary anxiety and conflicting medical advice.
• Accuracy varies between devices and can be affected by factors like sensor placement, compression during sleep, and individual physiology.
• The financial cost of CGMs—around $100 per month—is a barrier for many, and malfunctions or adhesive issues are common.
• While CGMs may flag potential metabolic issues, they are not a substitute for professional medical evaluation or a balanced, evidence-based approach to health.

The Bottom Line: A Tool with Potential—But Proceed with Caution

Song’s year with CGMs revealed both the promise and peril of wearable metabolic tracking. On one hand, the devices flagged elevated liver enzymes and mild fatty liver disease, conditions she’d never been formally diagnosed with. On the other, the data triggered months of anxiety, countless doctor visits, and a hyperfixation on numbers that may not have been clinically significant. For non-diabetics considering CGMs, the takeaway is clear: these devices are not a silver bullet. They offer valuable insights but require context, skepticism, and a willingness to consult healthcare professionals who understand their limitations.

Frequently Asked Questions about Continuous Glucose Monitors