• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Questionable GP Knowledge & Advice

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:

  • 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 understand that the levels that are discussed in these excerpts are from lab blood tests and not "user meter" tests, but there has to be some correlation surely?

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......!

All meters, including the ones used by any nurse, have to pass an accuracy test before they can be marketed. The standard is that for (I think) 95% of readings they must fall within 15% of the true value. Therefore any meter can be plus or minus 15% wrong. Your Accu Chek is no more likely to be inaccurate than the one the nurse uses. The only true way of determining your fasting glucose is a venous lab test. (and even that has many pitfalls) The normal diagnostic test is the HbA1c, although there are others.
You also need to bear in mind that our blood flows very quickly, and 2 consecutive tests are more than likely to reveal 2 different readings. This also applies if you use the same drop of blood for 2 tests.
 
Just tried to get an appointment with the Diabetes Nurse. It seems that one is off work indefinitely and the other works part-time and is trying to cover everything, so I won't get an appointment for a Diabetes Clinic. BUT, I can see the same nurse at an Asthma Clinic and she's going to be asked if she'll see me then to check my blood!!!
 
In my experience, I find the accucheck mobile to be the most accurate of meters I have tried and my fasting numbers correlated with a venous blood sample analysed in a lab. 6.7 fasting on meter and 6.7 on lab test.

On the other hand, my Sd codefree is always 0.5-1.0 higher than the accucheck.

I was also told I'm not diabetic based on an hba1c of 5.6 (38) by my gp and that they would test again in 12 months. No amount of protesting changed the doctors mind. I think they just see me as a hypochondriac.

What is very clear though is that despite my doctors insistence, I do have glucose tolerance issues, just not at full blown T2 levels yet.

I have made significant inroads to my fasting numbers with LCHF and now sit between 5.0-5.5 most mornings, however if I fast for 12 hours or more it will always rise to over 6 and sometimes closer to 7.

I have accepted what my do tor has said but applied my own due diligence and applied lifestyle changes before it becomes a bigger problem as through talking to people they are all very happy to confidently say don't worry you're aren't diabetic and then allow you to carry on as normal and then drop the bomb in subsequent annual tests without ever mentioning that you are higher than normal and need to pay attention.
That is exactly what they do.
 
Thanks for that.

I gather that there may be a lot more people unsurprised by my GP visit and discussion.
Yes. Been told lots of things that make little sense; particularly about diet. When I was diagnosed I was shocked and dismayed at the lack of care.
 
T rather startling claim that EVERYONE needs a sugar boost to get them going in a morning

Absolutely correct!!
The sugar boost is provided by your liver before you wake. It is called the Dawn Phenomenon or 'liver dump'
It's automatic, so you dont have to remember, and its FREE:D
 
I have also just noticed your age, from your profile. You should be invited for an MOT, which these days includes an HbA1c. Maybe you had one when you were 60, but they should be repeated every 5 years, more frequently if there is something suspicious. Has this not happened with you?
 
Only an hba1c which would be a positive thing. If you go for an OGTT you would be instructed to carb load in the days preceding the test anyway.

We all handle things differently, from my perspective I have identified that I have some insulin resistance and have made the changes before it becomes a bigger issue down the road when I get my next test in June.

Ultimately, if you have insulin resistance it will only get worst if left. A normal hba1c will not offer any reassurance that you're are no longer at risk of diabetes if you carry on as normal.

I think what I'm trying to say is why let a problem become a bigger one once you have a head start and an opportunity to attempt a reversal sooner rather than later.

Because there is no point in going for a test to see if you are diabetic, and artificially fixing it beforehand so you get a none diabetic figure.

It really depends on whether or not the op want's a meaningful test as he is now or not.
 
Last edited:
Just noticed the times are different, but the readings were taken from the same drop of blood a few seconds apartIMG_20170125_162458.jpg
 
I'd send for some free test samples from Accu-Chek if I was you
 
You could do with a third meter to see which one of those two is most accurate.
I use Codefree and it runs, if anything slightly lower than my Contour Next.

That could just mean two meters are as inaccurate.
 
My Codefree runs higher than my Accu Chek, but much depends on the actual tub of strips or a particular batch number. Some are reliable, some are not. I always make a note on my records which batch number I am using, and make a note when I change tubs from the same batch number. Then there are always the rogue readings - a corrupted strip or a microscopic bit of something on my finger, even soap.
 
What it does highlight is the caution required with individual readings, what counts is the trend and moving averages
 
Because there is no point in going for a test to see if you are diabetic, and artificially fixing it beforehand so you get a none diabetic figure.

It really depends on whether or not the op want's a meaningful test as he is now or not.
One way of looking at it. From his own testing it's clear he has impaired fasting glucose, that in itself is meaningful and requires attention. It is after all a precursor to T2D.

Some would say it would be foolish to ignore and carry on as normal regardless.
 
Just noticed the times are different, but the readings were taken from the same drop of blood a few seconds apartView attachment 21695
This corresponds exactly with my mobile and codefree... Minimum 0.5 higher but mostly around 1.0 higher.

As my mobile corresponded with a venous fasting test and was within 0.1 avg of my hba1c, I concluded the sd codefree is far from accurate. Useful for meal testing but numbers that are just wrong.
 
The point about test samples is they'll show which is most accurate and they're free so it pays to know
 
Back
Top