Alternatively @Brunneria there's always the gentle reminder that 80% of obese people are not diabetics so therefore using that rationale, there's a lot more to the whole situation than someone simply eating themselves into this condition!
well let's see about the rest...
1. No. The HBA1C does not measure average blood sugar levels , it measures something else entirely ( glycation of haemoglobin). Its partly because of that difference that the method of reporting was changed a couple of years ago from %s - 6.5 % A1C was too confusingly like an average bg of 6.5 mmol. But they weren't related.
That is a pointlessly pedantic response; are you seriously suggesting that glycation of haemoglobin is not related to serum glucose levels?
2.Debateable. The UKPDS study on which much of the talk about risks of Complications rests found that "good" A1cs lowered the occurrence of laser eye treatment for diabetics by 82% but had negligible effects on the three other main complications. The total reduction for all 4 complications was 88%. So they divided that figure by 4 and came up with the statement that good control of A1cs led to a 22% reduction in complications. Aggregating results like that to produce a false positive is what Ben Goldacre defines as "bad science" in his famous book of the same name.
If so then why do non-diabetics not suffer from diabetic complications?
3. No. we do not need to reduce bgs "over time" to lower HbA1cs we need to reduce bgs pronto ! The A1c although including some blood cells that are upto 3 months old is heavily skewed towards the last 10 days. That's why some dmers try to cheat by fasting and low carbing in the ten days before an A1c.
So, that's a yes then?
4. yes.
Thank you.
5. No. Carbohydrates are the major contributor to bg levels.
So, that's a yes then?
6. Yes.
Thank you.
7. The statement doesn't make sense . Should it say "our" ?
Thank you, typo corrected.
8. Not really - if you are allergic to a particular food for example you will soon know about it by blotches or rashes or anaphylactic shock without having to test your blood sugar levels. Diabetes should have been specifically mentioned in this statement instead of the sweeping generalisation.
Are you related to AMBrennan?
My GP was adamant that I didn't need to test. The DN said it was unnecessary toeing the practice party line I think. When I told her that I'd bought a test kit, she at least showed me the correct way of using it, but still muttered about it being unnecessary.
My dad is a type 2 diabetic and he hasn't been given a meter, test strips or any medication. He eats very healthily and is always on the move and the result is that his blood sugar is always in range. Given this, perhaps some DN experience a dilemma as to whether the above gadgets are needed for type 2's as some are in remission and some people are struggling?
Those struggling need meters to help them get on track. Those "in remission" need them to help them stay there. There are very few "in remission". In any event, they should be given out at the time of diagnosis, when they are most needed.
I can agree with that, but in my Dad's case, it seems like he's the exception to the rule. As a type 1, I've offered to let him use my blood glucose meter and he always refuses as his blood sugar is within range when he has his diabetic review. I've even asked him if he misheard the Dr. when HE says he was diagnosed with type 2!
I can agree with that, but in my Dad's case, it seems like he's the exception to the rule. As a type 1, I've offered to let him use my blood glucose meter and he always refuses as his blood sugar is within range when he has his diabetic review. I've even asked him if he misheard the Dr. when HE says he was diagnosed with type 2!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?