Strange

Blood glucose can change relatively quickly, if dietary and lifestyle changes target improving it. As a rough indication, an hba1c of 44 is approximately equivalent to an average blood glucose level of 7.3. An hba1c result of 41 is approximately equivalent to an average blood glucose reading of 6.8. That could be well within the bounds of possibility. (This is the calculator I used for the above - https://www.diabetes.co.uk/hba1c-to-blood-sugar-level-converter.html - usual caveats apply, i.e. it doesn't always directly convert like this, it's an approximate guide only).

From fingerprick readings following diagnosis, I went from an average of 15.3 to 7.8 in two weeks of low carb dieting. Everyone's different admittedly and fingerprick BG tests don't tell the full story, but it just shows that you could have achieved the results and they're accurate, even with just a few weeks of positive changes.

Regarding the cholesterol results, did you fast before the blood tests. Or if you ate beforehand what did you eat? The triglyceride level, part of the cholesterol panel is affected by recent food especially if it was fatty food.

Rachox said:

Regarding the cholesterol results, did you fast before the blood tests. Or if you ate beforehand what did you eat? The triglyceride level, part of the cholesterol panel is affected by recent food especially if it was fatty food.

Click to expand...

Interesting! Do you recommend (sorry - you aren’t allowed to do that, are you?) … find that fasting prior to blood tests may produce better results?

aylalake said:

Interesting! Do you recommend (sorry - you aren’t allowed to do that, are you?) … find that fasting prior to blood tests may produce better results?

Click to expand...

I know some say "don't fast"

I ignore that because I think the blood tests are important.

Why waste the test with doubts after about that what we drank or ate prior may have had a reaction ?

The only way I could make sure that anything that might interfere or raise/lower any metric is as minimised as much as possible, is to make the conditions pre test as close to identical as possible.

The only way I think I could reasonably do that IS by fasting.

I doubt any graph or tracker I used to help me replicate what I ate or drank prior to the last blood test, could ever get me as close to the minimal interference fasting gets me to.

of course others may disagree, but I'll carry on doing what I do.
Other are free to do like wise.


but I think my reasoning is sound.
and it's a small sacrifice for the knowledge the bloods are as accurate as my limited input can get them.

aylalake said:

Interesting! Do you recommend (sorry - you aren’t allowed to do that, are you?) … find that fasting prior to blood tests may produce better results?

Click to expand...

I don't know about "better results", I just always go fasted to any blood test so that it's consistent, and I then know that I'm measuring like with like as far as possible.
And by fasted I mean no food since the evening before, usually have dinner at 6pm. Even if its an afternoon test, I still stay fasted.

MrsA2 said:

Even if its an afternoon test, I still stay fasted.

Click to expand...

I always make sure to book an early morning test!

Rachox said:

I always make sure to book an early morning test!

Click to expand...

And I like to eat something before bed but don't care about breakfast, so I usually book late morning to noon, still giving me a 10-12 hour fast.

I always fast for tests too and then get them out of the way first thing in the morning so I can go straight to get coffee and something to eat after.

Thank you everyone for your input on fasting / not fasting prior to blood tests.

Late to the parade, but I was told not to fast for the first time, then castigated for the results! So ever after I have water fasted before the test, results are way better and to my mind more accurate anyway.