Hi 'fatbird' (love the picture of the bird by the way!)
Re the '93% of (T1s or all diabetics?) not making 'targets' - firstly, thank you very much for rasing this and for posting the link, I'll read the report with interest. Whilst I agree that, individually, we obviously have to do what we feel is best for ourselves, I can't help but feel that establishing objective facts about our health condition (if we can, whether by reading research or doing our own research on ourselves or both) must ultimately help that goal! Otherwise a simple belief in the likelihood of winning the lottery would have most people ending up in pretty dire straits whilst waiting for that probably false belief to materialise..
Anyway, back to the 93% : One question is whether the targets are what they should be. The NICE guidelines, amongst other guidelines, cite particular 'normal' glucose levels to aim for, but they don't cite the epidemiological research these come from (an interesting point here given the flow of the current discussion - anyone who is working to a particular (guideline-based) blood glucose 'target' is already, whether they realise it or not, relying on research that applies to the population, not to themselves, so how does it make sense to be uninterested in research evidence?). ...... Looking through the literature, I have so far been able to find only 3 studies attempting to identify 'normal' population blood glucose levels. Two of these are too small to be useful, the third may be the one NICE is working on and does give the figures they suggest as averages.... the devil is in the detail here, as when you break the figures down by age and gender (as the authors do...) the 'normal' levels are quite different from the 'average' NICE levels quoted... so, for a 'normal' 50 year old woman, for example, the 'normal' level is 14.7 mmol/l not 5mmol/l..... I am not making any claims here for what blood glucose figures 'should be' for anyone.. what I am saying is that without rather more evidence to back up the NICE figures, a lot of people may be aiming for something which is not only not achievable, but possibly 'abnormal', which could at least contribute to the 93% figures.