Gadget_man
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 73
- Type of diabetes
- Prefer not to say
- Treatment type
- I do not have diabetes
I've not been officially diagnosed as of right now, but having tested my own fasting blood for the last 9 days it would seem that there is an issue, i.e. the lowest reading I've had is 6.2 and the highest 7.3, which I am led to believe are outside the "normal range" for a non-diabetic.
On the basis of the readings I've taken I made an appointment to see my GP to discuss what happens next. Normally I've found this GP very good, helpful, good listener and has provided very good care. Anyway, I went there today and was a bit gobsmacked by what I heard.
I explained why I'd been testing my fasting levels and showed her the results that I'd printed out and was told that levels of up 6.0 are considered "normal". Whereas I have found evidence, on this forum and elsewhere that indicates my position is nearer correct similar to those I've copied into here as seen below.
A fasting blood sugar level less than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) is normal. A fasting blood sugar level from 100 to 125 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L) is considered prediabetes. If it's 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) or higher on two separate tests, you have diabetes. Oral glucose tolerance test.
Diabetes Tests and diagnosis - Mayo Clinic
www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20033091
Fasting test results
The results of a fasting test with respect to glucose levels in the body are as follows:
I was then told that my meter, an Accu-Chek Mobile, that is less than 2 weeks old, is probably inaccurate by up to 1.0 high, as most meters read higher than they should and, " you need to check your meter against the diabetes nurse's meter, as their's are accurate".
When I challenged this statement about the readings always being high and inaccurate by up to 1.0 by saying, in that case diabetics would over compensate themselves with too much insulin, I was told, "the readings mean something different for them, the readings for you mean something else and can't be relied upon". When I asked why they meant different things dependent on your diabetic / non-diabetic status, I was given some half-hearted waffle which didn't make much sense but ended with, "it's complicated". I decided not to go any further along this discussion path as I felt that the BS (pardon the pun) level was getting way too high.
Anyway, she's decided to send me for a "real" test, as she described it, and I have to await the results.
What are the experiences or comments on this from others?
P.S.
I'm making an appointment to see the diabetes nurse and check my meter against their 'accurate' one to see what the deviation really is between two meters. Not accurate I know, but still......!
On the basis of the readings I've taken I made an appointment to see my GP to discuss what happens next. Normally I've found this GP very good, helpful, good listener and has provided very good care. Anyway, I went there today and was a bit gobsmacked by what I heard.
I explained why I'd been testing my fasting levels and showed her the results that I'd printed out and was told that levels of up 6.0 are considered "normal". Whereas I have found evidence, on this forum and elsewhere that indicates my position is nearer correct similar to those I've copied into here as seen below.
A fasting blood sugar level less than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) is normal. A fasting blood sugar level from 100 to 125 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L) is considered prediabetes. If it's 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) or higher on two separate tests, you have diabetes. Oral glucose tolerance test.
Diabetes Tests and diagnosis - Mayo Clinic
www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/basics/tests-diagnosis/con-20033091
Fasting test results
The results of a fasting test with respect to glucose levels in the body are as follows:
- Normal: 3.9 to 5.5 mmols/l (70 to 100 mg/dl)
- Prediabetes or Impaired Glucose Tolerance: 5.6 to 7.0 mmol/l (101 to 126 mg/dl)
- Diagnosis of diabetes: more than 7.0 mmol/l (126 mg/dl)
I was then told that my meter, an Accu-Chek Mobile, that is less than 2 weeks old, is probably inaccurate by up to 1.0 high, as most meters read higher than they should and, " you need to check your meter against the diabetes nurse's meter, as their's are accurate".
When I challenged this statement about the readings always being high and inaccurate by up to 1.0 by saying, in that case diabetics would over compensate themselves with too much insulin, I was told, "the readings mean something different for them, the readings for you mean something else and can't be relied upon". When I asked why they meant different things dependent on your diabetic / non-diabetic status, I was given some half-hearted waffle which didn't make much sense but ended with, "it's complicated". I decided not to go any further along this discussion path as I felt that the BS (pardon the pun) level was getting way too high.
Anyway, she's decided to send me for a "real" test, as she described it, and I have to await the results.
What are the experiences or comments on this from others?
P.S.
I'm making an appointment to see the diabetes nurse and check my meter against their 'accurate' one to see what the deviation really is between two meters. Not accurate I know, but still......!