In February I was 43 mmol and although I somehow didn't get diagnosed until late April, I made lifestyle changes from about 5 weeks ago (tailored exercise/diet plan).
I requested a re-do on my HbA1c because my symptoms seem to be worsening and I have developed what appears to be diabetic dermopathy - but as of last Wednesday I am down to 36 mmol!?
So my short journey has been:
November > 38 mmol
February > 43 mmol
May > 36 mmol
I was shocked at the diagnosis as my only risk factor is my dad has type 2 (diagnosed at 69) - I'd be happy to share what I did on the success stories part of the forum because I put a lot of effort into my exercise plan especially but before I do, is it possible my Feb test was just some kind of false positive??
Everything I'm seeing suggests this is a wild up and down over 6 months.
I'm the "other moderator" mentioned above.
Bilous and Donnelly in the Handbook of Diabetes list a number of factors where HbA1c measurements can give what they call "spurious results" - these include things like anaemia, haemoglobinopathies, renal failure, age, and different ethnic groups. I have no idea if any of these are relevant in your case.
Secondly, the A1c test can be wrong: my most recent test at my GPs came back with my highest ever blood glucose level: I challenged it, they agreed to a lab test, and two blood samples taken ten minutes apart produced results that differed by around 15mmol/mol. Fortunately the lab test was bang normal. In your case though the three tests are not that different so I don't think that's a factor here.
However, assuming this isn't a testing issue - My symptoms started with an Hba1c of around 43 or 44. As far as I'm concerned, if a person has T2 diabetic symptoms, he or she has diabetes: raised blood glucose is just another symptom which causes additional knock-on problems. There's absolutely nothing magical about an HbA1c of 48 - it's just the figure that international endocrinology settled on that they would all accept as being of itself "diabetes". Personally I think the fact that 48mmol/mol is exactly 6.5% under the DCCT system used in the US might have had a lot to do with that number being chosen. Nothing prevents earlier diagnosis, but in practice that rarely happens in the UK these days.
I think it's possible that there are some of us who simply don't react well at all to any raised blood glucose. There are of course other people who report no symptoms at much higher BG levels. Us "sugar sensitives" seem to develop symptoms quite early. Mine weren't standard - I had no "frequent urination", in fact the exact opposite, as my kidneys almost stopped working.
I still have some very slight neuropathic tingle in my feet, which is probably permanent damage, but I wouldn't call it pain and it doesn't compared to the burning/stabbing full blown neuropathic foot pain. I also had a couple of diabetic symptoms that only appeared after my BG was back in normal range - mainly dry mouth (xerostomia). My speculation is that while my current BG might be normal, I was still carrying around a lot of damaged bits from the years of elevated glucose and it takes longer for those to be replaced.
The only thing I can suggest is to wait and see. That's what I did, and things stabilised. In the years after I lost quite a bit of weight, and a bit later restarted exercising. Your GP will undoubtedly tell you your blood glucose is normal and that's an end of it. And the GP might be right. But you need to be prepared for doing something should the GP not be right.
