Even without CGM data they could tell by what happens to diabetics with a consistently lower A1C? The other complicating factor is how can you separate out all the other factors that often go along with diabetes? For example someone with T2 may be more likely to be overweight, have a poor diet, high blood pressure, not get enough exercise etc. How much of the increased risk is due to all that? And for a T1, someone who has had it since childhood and consistently above normal ranges for many years is very different from someone with LADA for a short time.It's only since the common use of CGMs that diabetics can know what happens between fingerprick tests, and in the not so distant past diabetics had to rely on pee tests, which are nowhere near as accurate.
Diabetic complications develop over decades.
There is simply no data over decades because the means of measuring didn't exist.
To know the answer to your question, you'd need a large group of diabetics with an hba1c under 42 and a time in range in the high 90's with a tight range, and see how they've fared after 40 years.
Even with modern technology, those diabetics are hard to find, and you'll have to wait some 30 more years to be completely sure.
I haven't read the thread, I will try to find it. They think I have LADA because I have GAD antibodies, although my C peptide was also completely normal which contradicts that and he was not able to explain that. Anyway it doesn't make much difference to how I am managing it. I had insulin for 1 month (bolus only) then stopped as it was making me ill. 5 months later with no medications, just low GI diet and exercise and 100% in range, so a bit odd (but not complaining!).@Vectian Considering that probably still over half of medical professionals still believe that even Type 2 Diabetes is progressive and irreversible, it's not surprising that they apply that increased risk to all diabetics.
It seems there is some doubt about your type of diabetes, since you appear to no longer be taking insulin (for some time). But even if you were just an ordinary Type 2 in remission there would still be no definitive evidence as to whether your risk of neuropathy, retinopathy, CVD, heart and stroke risk would still (in actuality) be higher than a non-diabetic or not.
There is still a great deal of debate and controversy about CVD, Cholesterol, insulin and whether statins are good and if so under which circumstances.
Have you read the Cholesterol and Statins thread started by user Bulkbiker ? (Yes, I realise that he was banned some while ago, but that doesn't reflect on the information in that thread and his many other posts which haven't been removed).
Not if they're on insulin or some other medications.Even without CGM data they could tell by what happens to diabetics with a consistently lower A1C?
I was diagnosed with T2 eight years ago, and in hindsight had had symptoms for two years before diagnosis.By the way, I see you have LADA which is what they think I have. How long was your honeymoon period and were you taking insulin at that time?
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?