Glucose Tracking: Evidence Questioned
This is a UK news story, published by Guardian, that relates primarily to Ian Sample news.
UK news
For more UK news, you can click here:
more UK newsIan Sample news
For more Ian Sample news, you can click here:
more Ian Sample newsnutrition research news
For more nutrition research news, you can click here:
more nutrition research newsGuardian news
For more news from Guardian, you can click here:
more news from GuardianAbout the Otherweb
Otherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best health news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like nutrition research news, you might also like this article about
College London nutrition expert Prof Sarah Berry. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest personalised nutrition news, blood sugar news, nutrition research news, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
glucose trackingGuardian
•Revisited: does the evidence on glucose tracking add up? – podcast
59% Informative
Wellness firms such as Zoe in the UK claim to offer insights into how our bodies process food based on monitoring our blood glucose levels.
But many researchers have begun to question the science behind this.
Ian Sample talks to the philosopher Julian Baggini , the University of Oxford academic dietician Dr Nicola Guess , and the King’s College London nutrition expert Prof Sarah Berry .
VR Score
41
Informative language
28
Neutral language
95
Article tone
formal
Language
English
Language complexity
58
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
medium-lived
External references
no external sources
Source diversity
no sources
Affiliate links
no affiliate links