BRUNNERIA - Thanks for a most helpful explanation.
BRUNNERIA - Thanks for a most helpful explanation.that quote can be interpreted in different ways.
you seem to be interpreting it as ‘so long as I don’t go too high for too long, everything is fine (and I get to eat treats regularly).’
I and others on this board interpret that quote as ‘the organ and nerve damage from blood glucose levels above 7mmol/l is longterm and cumulative, and may not become noticeable until a great deal of damage has already occurred, making future management increasingly difficult, and diabetic complications becoming more and more likely as time goes by.’
it is, of course, everyone’s personal choice as to how they evaluate their personal risk and how they manage their health and lifestyle.
my personal view is that I am 53 and would like to live another 30+ years in good health, with eyes, feet, hands and internal organs all functioning well. So I don’t want my blood glucose rising to damaging levels at any point during the day which will, over the years to come, cause cumulative damage. I also like to keep my blood glucose well below damaging levels at all times, to give me a nice safe buffer zone.
Because I am human, I don’t always achieve this, but I achieve it consistently, and when I err, I keep my blood glucose well below 11mmol/l
Your mileage may vary, but you mentioned ‘quality of life’.
I make decisions that will improve my health a great deal in future decades, which will in turn improve my quality of life.
The magic figure of 153 appears to be used when diagnosing Gestational Diabetes using the One Step Method. It is the response to an OGTT, and is the 2hr PP minimum for PWD diagnosis as specified for the USA and some parts of Europe.
It is also the upper threshold for diabetes diagnosis where the HbA1c is expressed in the old system of % as it equates to 7% apparently.
Others have already answered your follow-up question, so right now I'll just add that avoiding lows is for T1's on insulin, and T2's on insulin or meds like gliclazide, which force insulin production. A T2 doesn't usually hypo without outside help from meds/insulin, so that criterium doesn't fly.Thanks - yes I see that HbA1c 7% is 154mg/dl. But of course HbA1c is an average - so some times higher and sometimes lower than 154. I was trying to get to the max practically safe number for a safe post meal spike. With my Abbott Libre CGM I am trying out, I can see that most of the time I am comfortably below 154 (with a predicted HbA1c of 6.5) but there are times when I am going past 180. I am hardly ever below 100.
I know if I go and see my doctor - she will likely say on seeing 6.5! - super control. But it seems that that's only part of the picture. I have seen data/articles that suggest that Time in Range (TIR) is more relevant and I should aim for 70% TIR but avoiding lows.
With my Abbott Libre CGM I am trying out, I can see that most of the time I am comfortably below 154 (with a predicted HbA1c of 6.5)
Hi. Yes it is the C-Peptide test. If the result is high it implies the body has more than enough insulin. If low the opposite applies. I've had two done privately over the years and these show my insulin to be too low hence my (own) LADA diagnosis. My GPs have not been helpful with my correct diagnosis but at least I am on insulin. As has been said, low-carb is the way to go. Various medications can help but the core problem of insulin resistance is best resolved by dietary change. It isn't easy as the Western diet is focussed around carbs which the food industry (and most diabetes organisations!) promote as they are highly profitable. The good news is that fats and proteins are fine as well as veg and non-tropical fruit. Even 85% Dark Chocolate is OK.answering my pown questions - seems its a C-Peptide Test
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?