Difference between Glucose Fasting & Hemoglobin A1C/Total Hemoglobin

[New2ThisType2]

Hi, can someone please explain the difference between the numbers for Glucose Fasting & Hemoglobin A1C/Total Hemoglobin?

I just received some blood results last week and am unsure of their meaning.
Admittedly I haven't been as good as I normally am over the summer months and was expecting an increase but I am not sure how to read these.

Glucose Fasting 5.6 (normal range 3.6 - 6.0)
Hemoglobin A1C/Total Hemoglobin Hi 6.9 <6.0

At first I thought 5.6 was good but the 6.9 I believe is the one I need to pay better attention to, I believe.

 

[bulkbiker]

Your HbA1c is an average of your blood sugars over the past 8-12 weeks (depending on the turnover of your blood cells)
The level of 6.9% (or 52 mmol/m) shows you have Type 2 diabetes and that your average blood sugars have been between 7 and 8 mmol/l
Your fasting glucose is a snapshot of your level at the time the blood was taken and at 5.6 mmol/l is pretty ok.

This graphic may help

 

[New2ThisType2]

So in short, 6.9 needs to be lowered. I usually have my tests taken at a different lab and can read their results easier than this one.

Thank you.

 

[bulkbiker]

So in short, 6.9 needs to be lowered. I usually have my tests taken at a different lab and can read their results easier than this one.

Thank you.

Yes.. ideally you want to get the HbA1c below 6% at least ideally around 5.5% or lower.
I see yours has gone up from April 2018 have you changed anything about what you eat in the last 3 months?

 

[New2ThisType2]

I have been naughty and eating quinoa. I had half convinced myself that I could eat it due to its low glycemic index but I knew deep down I really couldn't. I had somehow hoped I could get away with it because of better earlier numbers.

Guess I can't eat that anymore.

 

[bulkbiker]

I have been naughty and eating quinoa. I had half convinced myself that I could eat it due to its low glycemic index but I knew deep down I really couldn't. I had somehow hoped I could get away with it because of better earlier numbers.

Guess I can't eat that anymore.

Looks like that is the case.. Is that the only change or have you been eating the whole South American output?
What do you normally eat? And do you test your blood sugars regularly?

 

[New2ThisType2]

No, that's it. I dont eat anything else that would qualify. I do test regularly but recently changed from one brand of machine to another and have noticed that the first machine read lower than the newer one. I wasn't sure which one was accurate until these tests but the newer one seems to be the correct one. I was also ill a month ago which might have affected my levels. Oh, one other item I did eat for breakfast often was a handful of blueberries the only fruit I do eat. But I had noticed a few weeks ago, for the first time that it was pushing up my numbers within 1-2 hours of eating them. I have since stopped eating any fruit at all.

 

[New2ThisType2]

Reading another thread, I was prescribed Statins which I started 2 months ago. My cholesterol levels are not high but were slightly above the mid range for normal. I notice a lot of people dont like statins so I will have to read further to see if they could possibly be affecting my levels as well.

 

[HSSS]

They will likely be raising them. Next question is whether you want to continue them or not. Find the cholesterol and statins thread by bulkbiker and take a read

 

[New2ThisType2]

I would be more inclined to believe it could be the statins doing so, if that is possible for it is the only real change I have made these past few months. Yes, I have indulged in quinoa but not to a great degree. I was aware that it might have my A1C creep up a bit but certainly not to the degree that it has. Having noticed the blueberries doing so, for the first time, I cut those out and assumed that would compensate. So, it might appear that the one great change happening will be the statins.

I found that thread and have started to read it although admittedly I dont understand yet the first thing about cholesterol numbers so I have a lot to learn. I didnt take the pill last night and won't again at least until I am sure they are not the problem. My GP said that all patients with diabetes needed statins for the future, rather than my cholesterol numbers today.

 

[Bluetit1802]

My GP said that all patients with diabetes needed statins for the future, rather than my cholesterol numbers today.

Did he explain why?

 

[New2ThisType2]

Not really, other than to imply that even if cholesterol is low enough today not to be concerned with it, that without statins, as a diabetic our cholesterol levels will eventually be high enough to be problematic, therefore its a precautionary pill.

I had been prescribed them two years earlier but never took them and was given a harsh talking to about ignoring her advice.
Let me further that by also saying I had been prescribed blood pressure pills earlier as well but test my pressure daily and I have low blood pressure without taking them. I took the path of least resistance when I started taking the statins, basically just to shut her up although I had been meaning to investigate statins further but life these past two months got in the way.
I am going to have to investigate statins right away as well as start to understand what my own cholesterol numbers mean.
I believe that I was told they were just slightly above normal.

 

[New2ThisType2]

I am not at home now but will look further into my numbers when I am. I am in my mid 50s and a couple of years ago I started to develop a slight reddish colouring around my lower legs. Just above the ankles. As if that area has had a few hours of sun and has developed a slight pinkish hue. I have noticed this same colouring on many people over 50 but I believe it was that which prompted her to prescribe these pills.

 

[bulkbiker]

Not really, other than to imply that even if cholesterol is low enough today not to be concerned with it, that without statins, as a diabetic our cholesterol levels will eventually be high enough to be problematic, therefore its a precautionary pill.

I had been prescribed them two years earlier but never took them and was given a harsh talking to about ignoring her advice.
Let me further that by also saying I had been prescribed blood pressure pills earlier as well but test my pressure daily and I have low blood pressure without taking them. I took the path of least resistance when I started taking the statins, basically just to shut her up although I had been meaning to investigate statins further but life these past two months got in the way.
I am going to have to investigate statins right away as well as start to understand what my own cholesterol numbers mean.
I believe that I was told they were just slightly above normal.

Happy to take a look if you have them to hand...
Unfortunately its part of the doctors diabetes handbook that we should all be taking statins.. This is partly because if we followed their dietary advice our HbA1c's would be increasing exponentially and Type 2 would be the chronic progressive disease they always claim it to be. However once you have started to take control and have significantly lowered your HbA1c they seem to forget that you would not be viewed as "diabetic" if you were to walk into the surgery... I have done quite a lot of digging and reading and watching into the murky world of the most profitable pharmaceuticals ever invented and have become slightly sceptical of the many claims made for them. Once you realise that in the early trials the people who responded badly to them were weeded out (pre trial selection) then you really do start to wonder who they benefit more .... shareholders or patients..
I'll go get me tin foil hat!

 

[Bluetit1802]

Not really, other than to imply that even if cholesterol is low enough today not to be concerned with it, that without statins, as a diabetic our cholesterol levels will eventually be high enough to be problematic, therefore its a precautionary pill.

In my opinion that is a load of bull and over medicating. If she is an avid believer in statins, her better option would have been to prescribe them if and when your cholesterol/lipids did rise.

Yes, have a good read about them, and cholesterol, then make your mind up. I think I know which way you will turn.
My GP prescribed them for me when I was first diagnosed, even though my lipids were good. She told me "we give statins to all diabetics" I did take them for a couple of months because I knew no better, then I stopped after all my reading about cholesterol.

 

[New2ThisType2]

Will post them in 1-2 hours when I am home and have them at hand. Thank you

 

[There is no Spoon]

I'll go get me tin foil hat!

It's too late your hair has already escaped.

 

[bulkbiker]

It's too late your hair has already escaped.

That went many years ago..!

 

[There is no Spoon]

I didnt take the pill last night and won't again at least until I am sure they are not the problem. My GP said that all patients with diabetes needed statins for the future, rather than my cholesterol numbers today.

Hi New2This,
I read a report a while back when I was first looking into this that said patients on statins on average live a whole 2 weeks longer than patients with the same medical conditions who are not on statins.

Just food for thought.

 

[New2ThisType2]

Ok, here goes. Looking at the two tests, one from April, before I took the statins, until 3 weeks ago when the numbers are indeed lower. Without knowledge of what these numbers mean, at this point I haven't any idea whether this statin is indeed necessary or not. And/or what I must be eating for it to be so high. (providing these numbers are high?)

April Test:

Triglyceride - 1.71

Cholesterol - 4.96

HDL Cholesterol - 1.02

Non HDL Cholesterol 3.94

LDL Cholesterol - 3.16

Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol - 4.9


October Test:

Triglyceride - 1.67

Cholesterol - 3.30

HDL Cholesterol - 0.92

Non HDL Cholesterol - 2.38

LDL Cholesterol - 1.62

Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol - 3.6