Grazer said:The Christianssen study I and Phoenix referred to says 7.8 and not 8.5. He's not from USA. Don't think it's confusing - NICE use a figure which I and others think is too high, so we use a lower one. I'm sure others use ones even lower. I do and you Imply you do. NICE use below 7 HbA1C as a target and no-one believes that. You're rightly proud of uour 5.4? Not confusing. If people want to use 8.5 it's up to them - still not confusing. You said you'd be horrified if you got 8.5, so why tell others it's ok?
xyzzy said:I think you'll find 8.5 is not originally a UK recommendation but what the UK adopted from the IDF (International Diabetes Federation) over 40 years ago. Even 40 years ago 8.5 was seen as on the "high" side of safe by many researchers at the time.
In 2007 the IDF updated their recommendation to 7.8 based on a range of new studies including the one Phoenix and Grazer mention as well as studies such as...
Sid Bonkers said:I just use the same ones that are recommended by NICE and this forum here in the UK.
xyzzy said:I think you'll find you're the one posting the minority view, confusing and argumentative comments Sid.
lucylocket61 said:I am not sure I feel comfortable on this forum.
Every question or comment seems to lead to arguments
lucylocket61 said:Maybe they could have an Arguing Thread?
PS I love your Avatar
DittosweetLea said:lucylocket61 said:I am not sure I feel comfortable on this forum.
Every question or comment seems to lead to arguments
Yes, this has stopped me posting often as well. Shame, I'd have liked to join in more.
lucylocket61 said:And your reply is precisely why I feel uncomfortable. Having to defend myslef and being accussed of something i didnt say.
phoenix said:I don't want to get into he said this, he said that.
In this thread I think there's been some misinterpretation on both 'sides' and it's become akin to counting angels on a pinhead.
:***:
Couldn't agree more Phoenix. The pity of it is that everyone concerned means well. Personally , I don't get upset by disagreements but occasionally I feel that it is more about personaliies than facts and that should not be.
I understand the need for the newly diagnosed to have some simple , straighforward guidance and everyone concerned in the disagreements does an excellent job in that respect as do some others.
I don't think the forum should be constrained by the fear of confusing "newbies". There is easily accessible information here for them and specific areas where they can go.
The fact is, that there must be progress. Things are not set in stone - well some things are but maybe shouldn' be.
The science is evolving all the time and i am very grateful to those who bring it to my attetion.
Anone who wants certainties has been chosen by the wrong disease.
I relly don't think anyone should get upse at parameters and edefinitions changing. This wil happen all the time.
It is very understandable hat those who had a good initial experience upon diagnosis . like sid , for example . and many others will have more faith in the system than hose of us who have had to muddle our own way through.
Sid has not become complacent and and still keeps strictly ot the regime which works for him and may well work for many others.
Perhaps a little more mutual respect genlemen? I would hate to lose any of you. I would hate to seee this forum stultified and diminished.
I think we have an excellent mix of old and new and if sometimes these clash - we are all adults and can choose what yo take from the discussions.
Thank you all , [and phoenix] for your input.
Grazer said:You've both just joined, and reading back I see you've both received excellent advice from some of the posters on this thread, which you acknowledged. Perhaps a bit early to be complaining about those same long standing members (Sid included).
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?