Aggressively pursuing 'normal' bs levels dangerous?

A 3.7 year trial? Intensive glucose treatment? How far down the road to complications were this test group?


Not sure what to make of this study but would be interested to hear from those who like to dig and ferret for the real truth.


ps. looking to hear from a ferret not a weasel

If you read the ACCORD study itself, you will find that the the "intensive" group was using AVANDIA!!
also they have never explained why normal blood glucose isn't dangerous to non-diabetics. as it would be if that were the ONLY factor causing harm.[you need to isolate variables to prove causality]
This STUDY is often quoted by people who have never actually read the whole thing. It has been discredited often by people who HAVE.
I think it's one of the most harmful things that has happened to T2s.
What the headline hunters don't do is look at the much larger and scientifically better ADVANCE study, which does not give those duff results.

Hi PP,
This might help you to understand more about the study,

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/prof/he ... rd/q_a.htm

Phew thanks Catherinecherub, the op's link scared the bejaysus out of me :shock: I like your link much better, especially this bit :"For every percentage point drop in A1C blood test results (from 8.0 percent to 7.0 percent, for example), the risk of diabetic eye, nerve, and kidney disease is reduced by 40 percent. Lowering blood sugar reduces these microvascular complications in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes."
That certainly gives me hope and where would any of us be without that fragile little creature?

Reading the ACCORD study and the OP link

what it actually depits is that you can't set blanket Goals for diabetics to achiveve, but need to look at every individual assess several medical factors to pitch their control and treatment to there overall long term advantage...

Existing risk factors need to be taken into consideration, as it seems that for those who have pre-existing cardo problems, driving the A1c down to non-diabetic figures with high medication can actually increase the likely hood of a event happening etc..

You could be flipping a coin, increased risk of blindness or increased risk of heart attack? Less than 5% of diabetics suffer major impairment of vision, and treatment is improving with every year!

Comparing A1c's of non-diabetics to diabetics and assuming that because if they do fine on non-diabetic A1c's the diabetic automatically must etc etc... Is a load of tosh as the A1c yes can be used as an indicator of risks it can't not depict which or if a diabetic will have a complication.. There are diabetics with high A1c's that seem to avoid complications or have limtied complication, then there diabetics who have very good A1c's, but not only still get complication but also the impact is a lot higher!!!

After non-diabetics do get heart disease, circulation problems and infections that lead to amputations of limbs...

Re the Accord study it is worth noting from the blurb:

"To whom do the ACCORD study results apply?

The results of ACCORD apply only to patients at particularly high risk of cardiovascular disease and established diabetes. ACCORD participants had diabetes on average for 10 years, over a third had existing cardiovascular disease, and the rest had at least 2 additional risk factors (like high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, or obesity). Different levels of risk factors control may be recommended depending on each patient’s individual risk profile. These results do not apply to patients with type 2 diabetes who are younger, whose diagnosis is more recent, or who have a lower risk of CVD than participants studied in the ACCORD trials. It is not known what effect more intensive therapy might have on CVD in younger people with type 2 diabetes or in patients with a lower risk of CVD than were studied in ACCORD."

It would seem that within the population of diabetics the results apply to only those (a small group?) with long standing established 'problems'. Perhaps, therefore, less flawed a study than some might have us believe.