Slide 1 of 20
Slide 1 - CGM in Obesity: Fact, Fad, or Future Tool?
A Rational Clinical Framework for Endocrinologists
Targeted Guidance for Obesity Medicine Specialists
---
Photo by Gabriella Clare Marino on Unsplash
CGM in Obesity: Fact, Fad, or Future Tool?
Generated from prompt:
Redesign and modernize a physician-level presentation titled 'CGM in Obesity: Fact, Fad, or Future Tool? A Rational Clinical Framework for Endocrinologists.' Target audience: endocrinologists and obesity medicine specialists. Style: clean academic grand rounds, high visual hierarchy, minimal text per slide, strong clinical positioning. Structure (~35 slides): 1. Title slide (clean, modern) 2. Executive thesis: CGM selective utility, not routine therapy 3. Why this question matters (obesity vs diabetes burden) 4. Market expansion vs evidence timeline 5. Is obesity a glycemic disease? conceptual model 6. What CGM measures vs does not measure (visual comparison) 7. Postprandial physiology curves (lean vs obese vs T2DM) 8. Glycemic variability vs energy balance schematic 9. Personalized responses (Zeevi study concept) 10. Missing RCT problem 11. Evidence pyramid slide 12. RCT evidence summary (2020–2024) 13. CGM + coaching vs coaching alone 14. Observational attrition funnel 15. Metabolic outcomes independent of weight 16. Where CGM may help: Prediabetes phenotype 17. NAFLD & PCOS hypothesis slide 18. Behavioral neuroendocrinology model 19. Psychological risks 20. Physiologic misinterpretation risks 21. Cost-effectiveness comparison (dietitian, GLP-1, bariatric) 22. Commercial incentives slide 23. When CGM is rational (clinical criteria) 24. When NOT recommended 25. 14-day protocol overview 26–30. Protocol experiment slides (baseline, protein-first, walking, portion, consolidation) 31. Indian meal example clinical application 32. Future research priorities 33. Ideal RCT design summary 34. Fact vs Fad vs Future table 35. Take-home messages for endocrinologists Design instructions: white background, deep blue + teal accents, clean typography, bold headers, minimal bullets (max 5 per slide), diagrams instead of paragraphs where possible, executive clarity.
A rational clinical framework for endocrinologists on using Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGM) in obesity management. Covers obesity burden, CGM fundamentals, RCT evidence (2020-2024), rational indications, 14-day protocol, clinical examples, and未来研究.
February 28, 202620 slides
Slide 2 of 20
Slide 2 - Presentation Agenda
- Executive Thesis: Selective Utility
- Obesity Burden vs Diabetes
- CGM Fundamentals & Limitations
- Evidence Pyramid & RCTs (2020-2024)
- Rational Indications & Contraindications
- 14-Day Protocol Overview
- Clinical Applications & Examples
- Future Research Priorities & Take-Home Messages
---
Photo by Nathan Jeon on Unsplash
Slide 3 of 20
Slide 3 - Executive Thesis
1
CGM Selective Utility, Not Routine Therapy
Navigating Hype in Obesity Management
---
Photo by Logan Voss on Unsplash
Slide 4 of 20
Slide 4 - Why This Matters: Obesity vs Diabetes Burden
- Over 1 billion obese worldwide (2022): 879M adults, 159M children (4x increase since 1990)
- Linked to CVD, T2DM, sleep apnea, cancer, osteoarthritis
- Obesity multifactorial (diet, activity, genetics, environment) – NOT primarily glycemic
- Market push for CGM in obesity lacks proportional evidence
Source: Wikipedia: Obesity
Slide 5 of 20
Slide 5 - Market Expansion vs Evidence Timeline
2006: FDA Approves First CGM For type 1 diabetes management 2017: CGM for T2DM Expanded indications 2020: First Obesity Studies Observational data emerges 2022-24: Marketing Boom Limited RCTs; direct-to-consumer push 2024: Ongoing Trials Prediabetes & obesity phenotypes
Source: Wikipedia: Continuous glucose monitor
Slide 6 of 20
Slide 6 - CGM Fundamentals
2
Is Obesity a Glycemic Disease?
Conceptual Model & Measurement Realities
---
Photo by Sweet Life on Unsplash
Slide 7 of 20
Slide 7 - Postprandial Glucose Curves
- Lean: Rapid rise/fall, tight control
- Obese: Elevated baseline, prolonged elevation
- T2DM: Marked hyperglycemia, insulin resistance
- CGM reveals variability, not just averages
---
Photo by Sweet Life on Unsplash
Slide 8 of 20
Slide 8 - What CGM Measures vs Does Not
Measures Interstitial glucose every 5-15 min Glycemic variability (GV) Time in Range (TIR) Postprandial excursions Hypo/hyper alerts
Does Not Measure Total energy intake/calories Insulin sensitivity directly Nutrient composition (carbs/fat/protein) Activity expenditure Long-term A1c proxy accurately
Slide 9 of 20
Slide 9 - Evidence Review
3
From Observational to RCTs
2020–2024 Landscape
Slide 10 of 20
Slide 10 - RCT Evidence Summary (2020-2024)
- 2-5%: Weight Loss
- +12%: TIR
- N=5: Quality RCTs
- 47%: Attrition
Slide 11 of 20
Slide 11 - CGM + Coaching vs Coaching Alone
| Outcome | Coaching Alone | CGM + Coaching |
|---|---|---|
| Weight Loss (12w) | -2.1% | -4.3% |
| Adherence | 65% | 78% |
| Sustained GV ↓ | No | Yes |
| Cost | Low | High |
Slide 12 of 20
Slide 12 - Rational Use
4
When CGM is Rational
Prediabetes Phenotype & Select Cases
---
Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash
Slide 13 of 20
Slide 13 - Clinical Criteria: When to Use CGM
- Prediabetes phenotype: High GV despite normal A1c
- NAFLD/PCOS: Test glycemic hypothesis
- Plateaued weight loss with coaching
- Personalized nutrition experiments (e.g., protein-first)
- Exclude hypo risk in complex cases
Slide 14 of 20
Slide 14 - When CGM is NOT Recommended
- Routine use in all obesity (lacks evidence)
- Standalone without behavioral coaching
- High psychological risk (anxiety, obsession)
- Physiologic misinterpretation (GV ≠ calories)
- Cost-ineffective vs alternatives (dietitian, GLP-1)
Slide 15 of 20
Slide 15 - 14-Day CGM Protocol Overview
| Phase | Days | Intervention |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1-3 | Usual diet/exercise - establish GV baseline |
| Protein-First | 4-6 | Swap carbs for protein at meals |
| Post-Meal Walk | 7-9 | 10-15min walk after meals |
| Portion Control | 10-12 | Fixed portions + CGM feedback |
| Consolidation | 13-14 | Optimal combo + sustain plan |
Slide 16 of 20
Slide 16 - Clinical Application: Meal Experiment
- Baseline: High postprandial spike
- Protein-first: Flatter curve, better TIR
- Key: Personalize via real-time feedback
- Example: Roti → Paneer swap
Slide 17 of 20
Slide 17 - Future Directions
5
Research Priorities
Ideal RCT Design
---
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash
Slide 18 of 20
Slide 18 - Fact vs Fad vs Future Tool
| Fact (Evidence) | Fad (Hype) | Future Tool (Potential) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | Modest weight loss 2-5% | Routine obesity cure | Personalized phenotypes |
| Risks | Low in select | Psych burden | Optimized protocols |
| RCT Need | Limited | Overpromised | Prediabetes RCTs |
Slide 19 of 20
Slide 19 - Take-Home Framework for Endocrinologists
✅ Selective Use Prediabetes GV, stalled loss cases
🚫 Avoid Routine No evidence for universal obesity
📊 Pair with Coaching 14-day experiments for personalization
🔬 Demand RCTs Prediabetes, NAFLD phenotypes
Slide 20 of 20
Slide 20 - Thank You
CGM in Obesity: Fact for Select Cases Future Tool with RCTs Selective, Not Routine
Questions? Contact for Protocol Details
Discover More Presentations
Explore thousands of AI-generated presentations for inspiration
Powered by AI
Create Your Own Presentation
Generate professional presentations in seconds with Karaf's AI. Customize this presentation or start from scratch.