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

Site manager your blood glucose levels are contradictory please fix

hooha

hooha

Well-Known Member
Messages
206
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
long queues.
HELP HELP PLEASE !
Here is the link to your page:
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_care/blood-sugar-level-ranges.html

On this page you state normal levels non diabetic e.g
The NICE guidelines regard a fasting plasma glucose result of 5.5 mmol/l [ = LESS THAN 100, NOWHERE NEAR 108 ]
as putting someone at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, particularly when accompanied by other risk factors for type 2 diabetes. [ I interpret that as meaning 5.5 or 100 is the start of PREDIABETIC. ]
On the same page you state that

NORMAL = Below 6.1 mmol/l [ = Below 108 mg/dl ]

PREDIABETES = 6.1 to 6.9 mmol/l [ = 108 to 125 mg/dl ]

SO where does Prediabetes start ? Is it 100 or 108 ? In other units is it 5.5 or 6.1 ?

If you add in the + or - 15% error in the blood meter, we are facing a nonsense situation. BAd enough that the NHS GP's don't have a united front to help us, but with all this conflicting info we are in a daft place.
What can you do to correct this please?


 
While information on this site should be consistent, it is important to understand that "pre-diabetes" and even "diabetes" are not hard and fast, yes or no things. There is a gradual progression. When does pale grey become mid-grey and mid-grey become dark grey. Definitions change. The purpose of definitions is an administrative matter, not a carefully judged health issue. Governments and insurers have to be able to say at what level they will provide what treatment and thus a definition is born.
Sally
 
Thank you @azure & @hooha,

I have passed this on to one of our content writers to look into and amend.
 
Also note that N.I.C.E. the National Institute for health and Care Excellence is a UK organisation so its advice is only really relevant to those in the UK. Other countries have their own standards for diagnosing diabetes.
 
I don't think there are any contradictions here.

I don't think it's correct to interpret having a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes to mean actually having prediabetes.
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
I don't think there are any contradictions here.

I don't think it's correct to interpret having a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes to mean actually having prediabetes.
Click to expand...
I make you right.... Makes sense to me.

Under 5.5 is hunky dory, over 5.6 is at risk, 6.1 and over is Prediabetec....

Perfectly clear to me too.....
 
Sorry dont agree . some guidelines state CLEARLY that 100 plus is PREDIABETIC and 5.6 = over 100 [ multiply by 18 ] to get other units, and 6.1 [ = 109.8 ] is well up in the danger area as a fasting reading.

At risk of diabetes is CLEARLY out of normal range
[ where by definition one is not at risk ] and therefore at risk means prediabetic.
This confusion solves nothing.\

WHAT are the CORRECT cut off figures ? Sally above is wrong , the definitions are very clearly marked in clinical studies it is not at all a grey area . What is wrong is how the mixed messages are given to us, for political reasons. EG Diabetes uk[ that is the other web site , the dot org charity ] are well informed of the latest info to reduce starches but persist in the old fashioned message of eating plenty of starches AT EACH MEAL. Why ? It is politics and the fear of breaking new ground.At the same time they are paying for a huge research project to proove again what has already been proved - cut down on calories , and also avoid fast starches.
The example of the 100 cut off and the 108 cutoff are very marked illustrations of mixed messages.
 
sally and james said:
While information on this site should be consistent, it is important to understand that "pre-diabetes" and even "diabetes" are not hard and fast, yes or no things. There is a gradual progression. When does pale grey become mid-grey and mid-grey become dark grey. Definitions change. The purpose of definitions is an administrative matter, not a carefully judged health issue. Governments and insurers have to be able to say at what level they will provide what treatment and thus a definition is born.
Sally
Click to expand...

Sorry dont agree . some guidelines state CLEARLY that 100 plus is PREDIABETIC and 5.6 = over 100 [ multiply by 18 ] to get other units, and 6.1 [ = 109.8 ] is well up in the danger area as a fasting reading.

At risk of diabetes is CLEARLY out of normal range
[ where by definition one is not at risk ] and therefore at risk means prediabetic.
This confusion solves nothing.\

WHAT are the CORRECT cut off figures ? Sally above is wrong , the definitions are very clearly marked in clinical studies it is not at all a grey area . What is wrong is how the mixed messages are given to us, for political reasons. EG Diabetes uk[ that is the other web site , the dot org charity ] are well informed of the latest info to reduce starches but persist in the old fashioned message of eating plenty of starches AT EACH MEAL. Why ? It is politics and the fear of breaking new ground.At the same time they are paying for a huge research project to proove again what has already been proved - cut down on calories , and also avoid fast starches.
The example of the 100 cut off and the 108 cutoff are very marked illustrations of mixed messages.

Research the diabetes graphs , showing a gradual increase in blood sugar fasting over years then a sudden surge into fully diabetic ": read up on the twin cycle hypothesis. It's all there. 100 is the start of prediabetes. So where does this 108 number come from ?
The fear of putting insulin users into hypo means the ' target' level can be set too high.
 
Back
Top