The OGTT is a good predictor, based on a normal response.
The ops results fall into the normal category, and there is little point in then trying to tighten up the category to only be at the 'best' of normal.
As you say, the 'average' of groups were 7.8, not the individual response.
Hence the 2h cutoff t the 7.8, otherwise many none diabetics would be incorrectly failing, and being classed as diabetic while having a perfectly normal response.
Another important point you seem to have overlooked, is that the op was on a low carb diet immediately before this particular test.
This has been proven to slow the insulin response in none diabetics, and normally three days acclimatisation with a high carb diet immediately before should have been undertaken.
So in view of that, it would seem it's an even better result to achieve a normal response.
Before addressing anything else, let's be clear that we're not talking about this test result being diabetic vs. normal, but prediabetic vs. normal.
In post #8, a doctor was quoted as saying "OGTT will be a better predictor" although different from the HbA1c. My response to be unsure as to predictor of what; presumably of progression to diabetes.
The OP is not a nondiabetic full stop, but a former diabetic. Weeks ago his BG was high. His system is now in the normal range based on a single test run, and it seems on track to stabilise within the normal range. But for months to come it will be unstable. Scientifically, the OP is not necessarily like the normal people that clinical standards are based on, because past research into the risks of progression would not apply to people to were already had hyperglycaemia and have reverted to normal.
As to the test result having fallen into normal: one test result isn't an ironclad proof. I noted explicitly that this particular test has poor consistency. Diabetologists have been saying so for years, eg Dr. Davidson in the 2002 article I linked to. As to the appeal to what the diet was immediately before the test was taken, it should make no difference because the science of this test (which was refined decades ago) was surely not based on testees who were eating low carb, nor on testees who very recently tested diabetic; and again, because the test result has a wide error range.
The value in this favourable result is not that it genuinely shows his physiology to be longterm normal, rather (1) he will almost surely achieve full reversal shortly if not already; (2) he is officially negative, leave aside whether genuinely cured.
Last edited by a moderator: