The pitfalls of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for non-diabetics

In recent years, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have gained popularity beyond their original medical purpose. Originally designed to help people with diabetes manage their blood sugar levels, CGMs are now being worn by wellness enthusiasts (hello, Gwyneth Paltrow!), biohackers, athletes, and everyday health-conscious individuals looking to "optimize" their metabolism. But is this new trend rooted in science—or in savvy marketing?

Woman using a CGM system

While CGMs offer valuable insights for people with diabetes, their benefits for non-diabetics are far less clear. In fact, there are several pitfalls to using these devices without a clinical need. Here’s what you need to know.

1. Misinterpreting normal fluctuations as problems

Blood glucose is not a static number—it naturally rises and falls throughout the day in response to meals, stress, exercise, and sleep. For non-diabetics, these fluctuations are usually well-regulated by the body’s insulin response. A spike after a bowl of rice or a dip after a morning jog isn’t necessarily a sign of dysfunction.

Without proper context, users may overreact to normal glucose responses, avoiding foods unnecessarily or becoming anxious over entirely healthy variations. This can promote a disordered relationship with food and an obsession with “perfect” glucose levels that don’t actually exist.

2. Lack of actionable data

Unlike people with diabetes, who can adjust insulin doses or treatment plans based on CGM data, non-diabetics rarely have clear actions to take based on minor glucose shifts. There’s no evidence that micromanaging slight post-meal glucose increases in a healthy person improves long-term health outcomes.

In other words: just because you can track something doesn’t mean you should—especially if it leads to stress without meaningful benefits.

3. False sense of control or danger

Some users might believe that CGM data offers a crystal ball into their metabolic health or risk of future diseases. While persistent glucose dysregulation can be a sign of metabolic issues, isolated glucose spikes do not diagnose prediabetes, insulin resistance, or poor health.

On the flip side, a user might feel reassured by stable glucose numbers while ignoring more important metrics like cholesterol, blood pressure, sleep quality, or physical activity—factors that have a much stronger evidence base for long-term health.

4. Psychological stress and orthorexia risk

Wearing a CGM can lead to what some experts call "data anxiety"—worrying excessively about every small peak or trough in glucose. This hyper-awareness can push users toward extreme dietary restrictions or compulsive behaviors to “flatten the curve,” potentially paving the way toward orthorexia (an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating).

Wellness culture already leans heavily on perfectionism and fear-based health messaging; CGMs may amplify that dynamic in vulnerable individuals.

5. Cost and opportunity cost

CGMs are expensive—often costing hundreds of dollars per month without insurance. For those without a medical need, this cost may divert resources away from more impactful investments: a healthy diet, regular exercise, mental health support, or preventive medical care.

Put simply, chasing marginal (and unproven) benefits via glucose tracking may come at the expense of more holistic health efforts.

Bottom line: proceed with caution

The idea of real-time metabolic feedback is enticing, especially in a culture fascinated by self-optimization. But for non-diabetics, continuous glucose monitoring may offer more noise than signal. Until there’s clear evidence that wearing a CGM improves health outcomes in otherwise healthy people, its use should be approached with skepticism.

If you're curious about your glucose or insulin health, a fasting glucose test or an oral glucose tolerance test ordered by a healthcare provider is a more appropriate—and affordable—starting point.

Technology can be empowering, but only when it's guided by evidence, context, and common sense.