- Messages
- 1,849
- Type of diabetes
- Other
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
Yes 12 months hba1c under 48 with at least the last 2 months of that period medication free.I think "remission" has been defined based on not needing any drugs diabetes.
"pre-diabetes" mean GP tells you to keep to "eat well plate" and exercise more......... Therefore I think "remission" has been defined based on not needing any drugs diabetes.
But what does remission actually mean? It’s when blood glucose (or blood sugar) levels are in a normal range again.
I like that they are clear about the limitations of the study and the need for further research to address a number of questions
The best resource that I have found is the 2009 position paper by Buse et al:
How Do We Define Cure of Diabetes?
“A remission can be characterized as partial or complete.
Partial remission is sub-diabetic hyperglycemia (A1C not diagnostic of diabetes [<6.5%], fasting glucose 100–125 mg/dl [5.6–6.9 mmol/l]) of at least 1 year's duration in the absence of active pharmacologic therapy or ongoing procedures.
Complete remission is a return to “normal” measures of glucose metabolism (A1C in the normal range, fasting glucose <100 mg/dl [5.6 mmol/l]) of at least 1 year's duration in the absence of active pharmacologic therapy or ongoing procedures.”
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/11/2133
Aaahh now I understand they don't agree with the definition.
>“Prediabetes isn’t actually a clinical term which is recognised by the World Health Organization. In fact, the American Diabetes Association has set the level for prediabetes at a blood glucose measurement of HbA1C 5.7% (39mmol/mol) but it is the only organisation which uses this criteria. In the UK there is no defined criteria for prediabetes or borderline diabetes.
Errrrr so what are the folk that fall between 41 and 47?
I just checked my lab reports for the standard for non-diabetic.
Up to December 2015, normal was 20 to 42.
From July 2016 normal has been 20 to 41.
Logically, therefore, 42 and upwards is not normal.
Maybe it's because traditionally pre-diabetics could stop becoming type 2 with lifestyle changes rather than being type 2 and being it for ever. Oops nope that doesn't really work does it given that I've been told that I am not considered diabetic by my surgery so what is the difference for me between being pre-diabetic and type 2 as diagnosed by my surgery. There's no logic to that either.
Also I made a bargain so that I wouldn't be on meds. So I'd have been on them if I hadn't objected and my original A1c test results put me well within the type 2 range. Yet I'm not any longer.
But why can't they do a study on "low carb" and compare the results?
I expect the long-term results will be a lot better for "low carb" if a reduction in AC1 levels without increased drugs was considered as an outcome and everyone at the given GPs were included not just the people who agreed to do the diet.
(I don't know how many people declined to take part in this ND study as they did not want to do the diet, or were removed from the study for not keeping to the shakes.)
Speaking as one of those who’s diabetes is at a severe enough level to require meds in addition to dietary and other interventions in order to keep BMs at a reasonable level, Im really unsure what the **** you intend to mean by that commentI think you are correct about the type 2's on meds. At the end of the day they are the ones who are costing the NHS money.
1)Because the hypothesis under consideration had nothing to do with low carb. How / if different diets effect things is a secondary or tertiary research targetBut why can't they do a study on "low carb" and compare the results?
I expect the long-term results will be a lot better for "low carb" if a reduction in AC1 levels without increased drugs was considered as an outcome and everyone at the given GPs were included not just the people who agreed to do the diet.
(I don't know how many people declined to take part in this ND study as they did not want to do the diet, or were removed from the study for not keeping to the shakes.)
LOL Ringi that's what they tell you when you ARE diagnosed with Type 2. Well that's what they told me. My gp didn't tell me anything at all when they 'diagnosed' me with being pre-diabetic. It just wasn't that big a deal. Having read that it isn't a clinical term I now understand why it was 'no big deal' to my gp.
I think you are correct about the type 2's on meds. At the end of the day they are the ones who are costing the NHS money.
Speaking as one of those who’s diabetes is at a severe enough level to require meds in addition to dietary and other interventions in order to keep BMs at a reasonable level, Im really unsure what the **** you intend to mean by that comment
Diabetes is a universally agreed disease state wheres pre diabetes is a term reflecting increased risk of developing that disease stateErrrrr so what are the folk that fall between 41 and 47?
I just checked my lab reports for the standard for non-diabetic.
Up to December 2015, normal was 20 to 42.
From July 2016 normal has been 20 to 41.
Logically, therefore, 42 and upwards is not normal.