The Rise of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in People Without Diabetes: Helpful Health Tool or Unnecessary Trend?
If you've scrolled through social media lately, you may have noticed people wearing a small, round sensor on the back of their arm, paired with a smartphone app full of colorful glucose graphs. These devices, called continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), were originally designed for people with diabetes. Today, they are showing up on marathon runners, biohackers, and wellness enthusiasts with no diabetes diagnosis at all.
This shift accelerated in 2024, when the FDA cleared the first over-the-counter CGMs, Dexcom's Stelo and Abbott's Lingo, for sale without a prescription (1,2). Since then, these devices have appeared in major retailers, including Walmart and Amazon, often marketed as tools for "metabolic optimization" rather than disease management (3).
But does wearing a CGM actually benefit someone without diabetes? This article reviews what CGMs are, why they've become popular among healthy individuals, and what the current science says about their benefits and limitations.
What Is a CGM?
A CGM is a small wearable sensor, usually placed on the back of the upper arm or abdomen, that measures glucose in the fluid just beneath the skin (interstitial fluid) rather than directly in the blood (4). A tiny filament inserted under the skin sends glucose readings to a smartphone app every few minutes, creating a continuous picture of glucose levels day and night. This differs from traditional fingerstick testing, which captures only a single value at one moment. Interstitial glucose lags slightly behind blood glucose, so CGM readings aren't identical to a blood draw, but they correlate closely enough to reveal patterns and trends (4).
Most CGMs are worn for 10 to 15 days before the sensor needs replacing. Prescription CGMs, such as the Dexcom G7 or Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3, are typically used by people with type 1 or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and include alarms for dangerously high or low glucose. The newer over-the-counter versions, Stelo and Lingo, lack these alarms and are intended for people not at risk of severe low blood sugar (1,2).
Why Are Non-Diabetic Individuals Using CGMs?
Several factors have converged to push CGMs into the mainstream wellness market. The removal of the prescription requirement made devices easier to obtain, and companies have built coaching platforms, such as Levels, Nutrisense, and Signos, around pairing CGM data with nutrition feedback (5).
Fitness influencers frequently promote CGMs as tools to "hack" metabolism, optimize energy, support weight loss, and identify which foods cause personal blood sugar "spikes." Marketing often suggests that minimizing all glucose fluctuations is universally desirable, even for people with no metabolic disease. Some proponents argue real-time feedback makes healthy eating more intuitive, since users can see how a meal, workout, or poor night's sleep affects their glucose curve (6).
It's worth noting that glucose fluctuation after meals is normal physiology, not necessarily a sign of dysfunction. The liver and pancreas continuously keep glucose within a relatively narrow range that naturally shifts with food, stress, sleep, and exercise (7).
What Does the Evidence Say?
The scientific evidence on CGM use in non-diabetic populations is still developing, and results vary depending on the outcome measured.
Normal glucose patterns are now better defined.
A multicenter study of 153 healthy, non-diabetic participants using a modern CGM sensor found average glucose of 98 to 99 mg/dL across most age groups, with glucose spending roughly 96% of the time between 70 and 140 mg/dL (8). This reference data illustrates that healthy people already display tightly regulated, stable glucose patterns without any intervention.
Some behavioral benefits have been observed.
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies involving over 1,000 non-diabetic participants found CGM use was associated with a modest improvement in mean blood glucose and higher adherence to dietary and lifestyle interventions, but no significant effect on body mass index, concluding that CGM is unlikely to drive weight loss without structured coaching support (9). Notably, the glycemic benefit was concentrated in participants with prediabetes; healthy, normoglycemic individuals showed no meaningful glycemic improvement (9).
Real-time feedback can influence eating behavior.
A study using a CGM-based mobile health app among nearly 450 non-diabetic individuals found glucose excursions into the diabetic range in about 15% of seemingly healthy participants, suggesting CGM may occasionally detect undiagnosed glucose abnormalities (10). Separately, research published in Nature Metabolism found that the depth of an individual's post-meal glucose dip was associated with subsequent hunger and calorie intake (11).
Cardiovascular and long-term outcome data remain limited.
A 2025 systematic review on CGM for cardiovascular prevention in non-diabetic individuals noted that while glycemic variability, even within a "normal" range, has been theoretically linked to oxidative stress and vascular inflammation, very few studies have measured actual cardiovascular outcomes (12).
Overall, the data suggest CGMs can be a feasible engagement tool that may modestly support short-term behavior change, but they have not been shown to meaningfully improve weight, and long-term outcome data in healthy populations remain lacking (9,12).
Potential Risks and Limitations
Cost. Over-the-counter CGMs are not typically covered by insurance for non-diabetic users. Stelo costs roughly $99 for two 15-day sensors, while Lingo retails for under $50 per two-pack, so ongoing use can cost several hundred dollars per year (3,13).
Overinterpretation of normal fluctuations. Because glucose naturally rises and falls with meals, stress, sleep, illness, and the menstrual cycle, healthy users may misread ordinary variation as a problem. Some wellness platforms encourage minimizing all glucose spikes, even though a moderate post-meal rise is a normal physiological response, not inherently harmful (7,14).
Psychological effects. Constant access to biometric data isn't emotionally neutral for everyone. Research on glycemic variability has found associations between larger glucose swings and self-reported mood changes, and some clinicians have raised concerns that hyperfocus on a single biomarker may contribute to anxiety or food-related preoccupation in susceptible individuals, similar to patterns seen with other forms of obsessive health tracking (15).
Data privacy. Health data collected through consumer CGM apps is generally not protected under HIPAA, because most CGM and wellness-coaching companies aren't "covered entities" like hospitals or insurers (16,17). Instead, this data falls under a patchwork of state laws and the FTC's Health Breach Notification Rule, which require companies to disclose data breaches but don't necessarily restrict how glucose and lifestyle data may be shared with advertisers or other third parties (16,17).
Device accuracy in non-approved uses. Over-the-counter CGMs lack the high and low glucose alarms found in prescription models, and manufacturers explicitly do not recommend them for people prone to hypoglycemia (1,2). Using these devices to self-manage an undiagnosed condition, rather than as a general wellness tool, falls outside their intended use.
Who Might Benefit?
Although CGM is not currently recommended as a routine wellness tool for the general healthy population, certain groups may have a more plausible rationale for use, generally with guidance from a healthcare provider:
● People with prediabetes, where the meta-analytic evidence shows the clearest glycemic benefit from CGM-supported lifestyle interventions (9).
● Individuals with strong risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as a close family history, who may benefit from early detection of abnormal glucose patterns (10). ● Athletes and researchers studying the relationship between fueling strategies and metabolic response, an area of active scientific interest (6).
● People already working with a dietitian, endocrinologist, or other clinician who can interpret CGM data in proper context.
For most healthy adults with no metabolic risk factors, current evidence does not show a clear health benefit to routine CGM use beyond standard healthy lifestyle practices (9).
The Future of Metabolic Wearables
CGM is likely just the first wave of a broader trend toward continuous, non-invasive metabolic monitoring. Researchers are developing non-invasive glucose sensors that would eliminate the need for a subcutaneous filament, alongside wearables combining glucose data with heart rate variability, sleep staging, and continuous ketone or lactate monitoring for a fuller metabolic picture (12). As these technologies mature, larger, longer randomized controlled trials will be needed to determine whether continuous metabolic feedback genuinely improves long-term health outcomes in people without diabetes, or mainly increases engagement with health apps without changing hard outcomes like cardiovascular events or diabetes incidence (9,12).
Key Takeaways
● CGMs measure interstitial glucose in real time and were originally developed for diabetes management; over-the-counter versions for non-diabetic users became available in the U.S. in 2024.
● Current evidence shows modest behavioral benefits (such as improved dietary adherence) in non-diabetic users, but no significant effect on weight, and the clearest glycemic benefit is seen in people with prediabetes rather than healthy individuals.
● Normal, healthy glucose physiology already includes natural fluctuations after meals, exercise, and stress; not every glucose spike reflects a health problem.
● Potential downsides include ongoing cost, anxiety or overinterpretation of normal data, and gaps in data privacy protection, since most consumer CGM platforms fall outside HIPAA.
● People with prediabetes, strong diabetes risk factors, or those working with a healthcare provider may have the clearest rationale for CGM use; for the general healthy population, more long-term research is needed before routine use can be considered evidence-based.
This article is intended for general educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Individuals interested in glucose monitoring should speak with a qualified healthcare provider about whether it is appropriate for their individual circumstances.
References
1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA clears first over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor. March 5, 2024. Available from:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-clears-first-over-counter-c ontinuous-glucose-monitor
2. MedTech Dive. Abbott receives FDA OK for over-the-counter glucose monitor. June 2024. Available from:
3. eMarketer. Walmart adds over-the-counter blood sugar monitors. October 2025. Available from:
https://www.emarketer.com/content/walmart-lands-first-in-store-retail-deal-abbott-blo od-sugar-monitoring-device
4. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Continuous Glucose Monitoring. National Institutes of Health. Available from: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/managing-diabetes/c ontinuous-glucose-monitoring
5. Vasculearn Network. Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Non-Diabetics: A New Frontier in Metabolic Health Optimization. 2025. Available from:
https://thrombosis.org/patients/patient-articles/continuous-glucose-monitoring-for-non -diabetics-a-new-frontier-in-metabolic-health-optimization
6. Wentz K, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Healthy Adults—Possible Applications in Health Care, Wellness, and Sports. Nutrients/PMC. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915088/
7. Banner Health. The Importance of Glycemic Variability. 2021. Available from: https://www.bannerhealth.com/healthcareblog/better-me/is-your-blood-sugar-stable-w hy-glycemic-variability-matters
8. Shah VN, DuBose SN, Li Z, Beck RW, Peters AL, Weinstock RS, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Healthy Nondiabetic Participants: A Multicenter Prospective Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(10):4356-4364.
9. Liao X, Li Y, Tang S, Xiao Y, Yu X, Huang R, Zhong T. Continuous glucose monitoring in non-diabetic populations: a systematic review of observational and interventional studies with meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res. 2026 Jan 26. doi: 10.1186/s40001-026-03920-0.
10. Dehghani Zahedani A, Shariat Torbaghan S, Rahili S, Karlin K, Scilley D, Thakkar R, et al. Improvement in Glucose Regulation Using a Digital Tracker and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Healthy Adults and Those with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(7):1871-1886.
11. Wyatt P, Berry SE, Finlayson G, O'Driscoll R, Hadjigeorgiou G, Drew DA, et al. Postprandial glycaemic dips predict appetite and energy intake in healthy individuals. Nat Metab. 2021;3(4):523-529.
12. MDPI Sensors. Non-Invasive Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients Without Diabetes: Use in Cardiovascular Prevention—A Systematic Review. 2025. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/1/187
13. GoodRx. 7 Over-the-Counter Continuous Glucose Monitoring FAQs Answered. 2024. Available from:
14. Levels. What is glycemic variability and why does it matter? 2024. Available from: https://www.levels.com/blog/what-is-glycemic-variability-and-why-does-it-matter 15. ScienceDirect. Risk of depression and anxiety disorders according to long-term glycemic variability. 2023. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032723011515 16. Federal Trade Commission. Complying with FTC's Health Breach Notification Rule. Available from:
17. Federal Trade Commission. Mobile Health App Interactive Tool. Available from: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/mobile-health-apps-interactive-tool
Assessed and Endorsed by the MedReport Medical Review Board
