His reasoning is to avoid any diabetic complications , additionally he achieved these HBA1C target levels and by doing so reversed a number of diabetic complications he was suffering from. I've read the book several times , it's my diabetic 'bible'.
As iHs has pointed out, there are many type 1's who have higher bg control than Dr Bernstein suggests and don't have complications after 40, 50, 60 of living with diabetes, some are members of this very forum.
There are also many smokers who have smoked for 60 years and not got lung cancerTo me it's the risk factor , running your blood sugars higher than normal (i.e outside the. non-diabetic range) constitutes a certain amount of risk to your health.
Depends what you call complications, @noblehead. I've only just been diagnosed and I may have lots of low-level complications from recent years. Just because they come in below the official red lines doesn't mean I want them to continue.Yes I would imagine that is his reasoning, but why such tight bg control to the point where it is unachievable to many when the average non-diabetic range is 4.7 - 5.7 (as Dillinger made reference to in his opening post). It just doesn't make sense to me I'm afraid.
As iHs has pointed out, there are many type 1's who have higher bg control than Dr Bernstein suggests and don't have complications after 40, 50, 60 of living with diabetes, some are members of this very forum.
Now signed off consultant, so left to duel with practice(ing) nurse!Know what you mean,
I'm T2 on D&E , but still see a consultant. He says that I MUST be having hypos, despite having done random BGs through the night THANKS wife!. Have asked for evidence that i don't pull my bG back up like a non-D but no joy! Dogma says i must be hypoing so no allowing reality/evidence getting in the way!
Thanks for posting that Mendosa blogpost, Dillinger. It's totally to the point. There's a big discussion of this - of low HbA1cs versus hypo risk -going on here at the moment, if you're interested.It's a tricky one to get a straight answer to that; there is a lot of discussion on here about it but I have just found this old blog that suggests 4.7 to 5.7% is what 95% of non-diabetic are at.
Is that a possible or even achievable level?
Bernstein suggests between 4.2% and 4.6% - but I've only ever dipped into the high 5's
Best Dillinger
http://www.mendosa.com/blog/?p=366
Thanks for posting that Mendosa blogpost, Dillinger. It's totally to the point. There's a big discussion of this - of low HbA1cs versus hypo risk -going on here at the moment, if you're interested.
I think the DCCT trail in the 90s (10s of thousands of patients) found that the risk of complicatins reaches unity with the non-diabetic population at an HbA1c of around 6.5%.
From personal experience, my retinopathy disappeared when my HbA1c went from the 7s to <6.5%, so I believe that to be true. I think that retinopathy scans are a good measure of your overall complication status as they are the only tissue that can be microanalysed regularly.
I agree with Noblehead, any T1 that can get close to 6.5% is doing very well.
@SamJB - have you returned from the wilderness? Or possibly I've not seen your posts recently.
Either way good to hear from you!
Best
Dillinger
.
Personally, I'd go for the lowest HbA1c that I can safely achieve.
Smidge
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?