To be honest, I didn’t worry about my fasting levels until quite recently as I suffered with dawn phenomenon for a long time after diagnosis. It wasn’t until more recently when I started posting here on this thread that I looked up the quoted page so it was probably already at the lower level when I checked. I often wonder how they choose the ranges though.Thank you. I was following this guide and it used to show 108mg/dl as the cut off, then in May 2018 I noticed it changed to 100mg/dl was informed that Diabetes had changed and lowered, now following the Nice.
It was for this, I was in wonderment, if people using the site forum/ may may not have noticed the change lowering from
108mg/dl to 100m/dl as its not something one daily looks at to be honest. It was by chance I spotted it myself.
I take it you were following Rachox 108mg/dl and now using the lowered number of 100mg/dl Has this made any difference to your result levels is once you were normal and perhaps due to the lowering of cut off to 100mg/dl may have placed yourself or others in another bracket i.e. pre diabetes whereas before one was not.
It may be many people out there may not have even realized or noticed that the cut off has lowered, hence, my curious question generally.
thanks for info provided.
Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to sample and record - not test as that implies pass or fail. Nil desperandum - just ask yourself, "what would Chuck Norris do?"Morning
6.9 wish I knew what on earth was going on.
To be honest, I didn’t worry about my fasting levels until quite recently as I suffered with dawn phenomenon for a long time after diagnosis. It wasn’t until more recently when I started posting here on this thread that I looked up the quoted page so it was probably already at the lower level when I checked. I often wonder how they choose the ranges though.
I started recording in July 2015 and always took 100 as the top number for fasting to indicate some level of control but I am, as they say, a very odd fishExactly as you state, your a person who by chance only viewed the chart recommended guide page, and of course, it was showing the new now lowered cut off as below 100mg/dl i.e. 5.5mmol/l.
This was my curiosity regards those posting their daily fasting especially may be feeling little disappointed at their number, yet is this necessary due to lowering of numbers.
I give an example those who show on forum today a result fasting lets say of 5.8% or 5.9% last year this fasting result under the previous cut off 108mg/dl 6.1mmol/l those results would be viewed "normal" non diabetic range, however, today now, since the lowering for whatever reason, to 100mg/dl 5.5mmol/l their results will now change their status to be "pre diabetic" range.
I am note sure if these people are still under the impression working on 108mg/dl cut off or 100mg/dl.
No one seems to have noticed or commented on the "sudden" change of lowering of numbers, and although Diabetes Co.Uk as they informed myself, on asking said they now follow the guides of NICE, there is some differences still as NICE guides show on the diabetes Co.Uk Website for fasting non diabetic normal levels as follows
between 4.0 to 5.4mmol/L i.e. 72 to 99mg/dl when fasting.
That just adds more confusion to the Pot?
Also 108mg/dl showed 6.1mmol/l previously, and in reality as I understand is 6mmol/l??
More confusion again.
I hope you can see the point of awarness I raise, as people who may be disappointed at their reading of say 5.8mmol/L say based on to be below 5.5mmol/fasting, if the cut of had not lowered, they actually would be viewed as normal non diabetic as they are below the 6mmol/L and/or 6.1mmol/L Last year normal, this year 2018 based on new low cut off pre diabetic?
This seems such a crazy situation to be in place, whether anyone else thinks that, I dont know???
I suppose one day they will find a set strict cut off that everyone follows the same, is that asking too much? and not continually keep lowering, and lowering, without showing clinical and or medical support evidence as to the new change and reasons of that.
In between such a great pity that people may be feeling down, disappointment, when in reality there may not be a reason for this, other than somone decided to lower the number from 108mg/dl whatever sound or other reason to 100mg/dl.
that was the curiosty question overall due to this bizarre situation.
Has anyone out there noticed the lowering of the fasting cut off as a general question from 108mg/dl 6.1mmol/l to now
100mg/dl below 5.5mmo/mol 2018?? Just curious again?
I started recording in July 2015 and always took 100 as the top number for fasting to indicate some level of control but I am, as they say, a very odd fish
Hi @Moggely to try and beat that woman Dawn phenomenontake your test kit to bed with you. If you wake up earlier than normal test and see what figure you get [
Morning
6.9 wish I knew what on earth was going on.
Hi @Terrytiddy . I did that, then decided i valued my fingers, so gave that away due to obsession.Hi @Moggely to try and beat that woman Dawn phenomenontake your test kit to bed with you. If you wake up earlier than normal test and see what figure you get
Yes, rather an overindulgent weekend, at the end of a week off. I am sure it will come on down slowly during this week.That's high by your standards. All well?
Morning
6.9 wish I knew what on earth was going on.
Thanks for sharing,may I ask curiosity nothing else, if using D.Co.Uk website chart guides? recommendations, are you basing the guide that was previous fasting i.e to be below 108mg/dl i.e. 6.1mmol/L? or the current guide on the site i.e. 100mg/dl i.e. 5.5mmol/L? to base your results from? I ask am interested to know generally what methods and fasting guides one is using, as guides and recommendations differ worldwide as many on forum are from different parts of the world, and when they put their fasting morning results wonder which cut off level they are using? wishing a nice day.5.8 for me this morning
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?