diabetics have the right to normal blood sugar levels, it sounds funny but some some reason some health care professionals dont think so and seem to want us to have dangerously high blood sugar levels. Study after study shows that an A1C over 6% is practically inviting complications.
-
Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUGAR LEVELS
- Thread starter James12
- Start Date
mrman
Well-Known Member
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
I thought long term complications arise with consistent hba1c over 7.5. Whilst we all strive for non diabetic readings it can be difficult for most. Most consultants like to see hba1c between 6, 6.5. I think the reason for this is if less than 6, it us likely to involve alot of hypos, not true for everyone though and easier on a pump. My last hba1c was 6.7 which I was very happy with. Any lower I think I would have alot of hypos throughout the day and night on mdi.
Sent from my GT-S5360 using DCUK Forum mobile app
I thought long term complications arise with consistent hba1c over 7.5. Whilst we all strive for non diabetic readings it can be difficult for most. Most consultants like to see hba1c between 6, 6.5. I think the reason for this is if less than 6, it us likely to involve alot of hypos, not true for everyone though and easier on a pump. My last hba1c was 6.7 which I was very happy with. Any lower I think I would have alot of hypos throughout the day and night on mdi.
Sent from my GT-S5360 using DCUK Forum mobile app
Robinredbreast
Oracle
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
Diabetes specialists especially the nurses :? seem to harp on more about hypos and not getting too many, rather than focussing on highs
. Have other people experienced this ?
Best wishes RRB
Diabetes specialists especially the nurses :? seem to harp on more about hypos and not getting too many, rather than focussing on highs
. Have other people experienced this ?Best wishes RRB
mrman
Well-Known Member
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
Both are bad especially for drivers . They do seem to focus on lows more than highs, but I don't like either lol. Try to stay between 5 and 8 but as everyone sometimes nothing works. I don't worry about the odd high or low especially when I know the cause. All about balance and alot of testing to get it right as much as poss not too high and not to low lol
Sent from my GT-S5360 using DCUK Forum mobile app
Both are bad especially for drivers . They do seem to focus on lows more than highs, but I don't like either lol. Try to stay between 5 and 8 but as everyone sometimes nothing works. I don't worry about the odd high or low especially when I know the cause. All about balance and alot of testing to get it right as much as poss not too high and not to low lol
Sent from my GT-S5360 using DCUK Forum mobile app
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
Robin, you might want to take everything diabetes nurses say with a pinch of salt. Your endocrinologist will be able to give you the best, up to date advice. Having a good diabetes team is extremely important and unfortunately doctors and nurses will have different opinions on what 'normal' blood sugar levels are. Please try and find a team that agrees with your views.
Robinredbreast said:Diabetes specialists especially the nurses :? seem to harp on more about hypos and not getting too many, rather than focussing on highs
Best wishes RRB
Robin, you might want to take everything diabetes nurses say with a pinch of salt. Your endocrinologist will be able to give you the best, up to date advice. Having a good diabetes team is extremely important and unfortunately doctors and nurses will have different opinions on what 'normal' blood sugar levels are. Please try and find a team that agrees with your views.
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
My last A1C was 5.8 and I got told (by my endocrinologist) that this was within the non-diabetic range and I was controlling it too much! Typical story of worrying about too many hypos and suggesting I might want to 'back off a little'.
Now I've only been Type 1 for about 6 months so still very much learning but surely normal range is what we're supposed to be aiming for; provided we're not getting hypos all the time obviously?!
My last A1C was 5.8 and I got told (by my endocrinologist) that this was within the non-diabetic range and I was controlling it too much! Typical story of worrying about too many hypos and suggesting I might want to 'back off a little'.
Now I've only been Type 1 for about 6 months so still very much learning but surely normal range is what we're supposed to be aiming for; provided we're not getting hypos all the time obviously?!
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
The healthcare professionals repeat what they have been taught, even if it's decades out of date and/or demonstrably WRONG.
Hence the damage done by the ACCORD study, which showed that if you treat diabetes with large doses of multiple medications, you increase the mortality rate.
It was interpreted by many to show that it was the lowered A1cs which were dangerous. Totally ignoring the fact that non-diabetics have low A1cs in the main.
It's BAD SCIENCE
I usually ask them if they know what a non-diabetic A1c is and then if they happen to, which not many do, I ask if it's a risk to non-diabetics.
Many cannot make the link with what is safe for a non-diabetic being safe for diabetics.
I did try to teach GOOD SCIENCE when Itaught it and was sometimes horrified by the lack of real understanding of the difference between a "link" and a "cause".
Hana
The healthcare professionals repeat what they have been taught, even if it's decades out of date and/or demonstrably WRONG.
Hence the damage done by the ACCORD study, which showed that if you treat diabetes with large doses of multiple medications, you increase the mortality rate.
It was interpreted by many to show that it was the lowered A1cs which were dangerous. Totally ignoring the fact that non-diabetics have low A1cs in the main.
It's BAD SCIENCE
I usually ask them if they know what a non-diabetic A1c is and then if they happen to, which not many do, I ask if it's a risk to non-diabetics.
Many cannot make the link with what is safe for a non-diabetic being safe for diabetics.
I did try to teach GOOD SCIENCE when Itaught it and was sometimes horrified by the lack of real understanding of the difference between a "link" and a "cause".
Hana
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
they worry about hypos because they are more dangerous in the short term than running slightly high all the time...
I suspect the reason they're really worried about hypos is that they can be fatal and the person who's care you are under would be dragged into the coroner's court to explain themselves. Unfortunately for us, the consequences of running slightly high aren't likely to get the responsible healthcare person dragged into a coroner's court to explain themselves...
they worry about hypos because they are more dangerous in the short term than running slightly high all the time...
I suspect the reason they're really worried about hypos is that they can be fatal and the person who's care you are under would be dragged into the coroner's court to explain themselves. Unfortunately for us, the consequences of running slightly high aren't likely to get the responsible healthcare person dragged into a coroner's court to explain themselves...
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
It seems this is a frustration many type1's share, thankfully test strip rationing is being discussed in parliament at the moment, however i think there needs to be further action taken to bring type 1 treatment up to date. Being diabetic is hard enough, having a unsupportive doctor doesn't help. I also think its important that diabetics continue to self educate themselves by reading up to date studies and books like Dr. Bernstieins diabetes solution. I experienced the 'Accord Study Stunt' from a doctor after my H1C was normal , i then researched the paper myself and was pleased to see that it had no relevance to my condition, but was saddened by the fact i had been lied to by a doctor.
It seems this is a frustration many type1's share, thankfully test strip rationing is being discussed in parliament at the moment, however i think there needs to be further action taken to bring type 1 treatment up to date. Being diabetic is hard enough, having a unsupportive doctor doesn't help. I also think its important that diabetics continue to self educate themselves by reading up to date studies and books like Dr. Bernstieins diabetes solution. I experienced the 'Accord Study Stunt' from a doctor after my H1C was normal , i then researched the paper myself and was pleased to see that it had no relevance to my condition, but was saddened by the fact i had been lied to by a doctor.
hanadr said:
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
An MD does not make you right, and I would recommend that you stay away from any alleged miracle cures unless you now enough statistics to spot the bovine excrement. (I'm planning to comment on Dr Lustig's book as well, btw)
More bluntly, telling people to aim for <6% resulted in additional and preventable deaths.
In fact, the problem is that you are not doing science at all - your theory of how HbA1c, blood glucose and diabetes (or chooseterol in case of statin denial) works has blinded you to the reality. We practise evidence medicine today, and that means being open to the possibility that your theory is wrong. High HbA1c results in increased risk of complications, and the hypothesis that intense glycemic control will result in even better outcomes is plausible but it is wrong.
A scientist would take that information an adjust is theory. You, instead, blame the researchers for coming up with observations that conflict with your preconceptions.
Remember Semmelweis - how many people died needlessly because people knew that infant deaths were caused by woman being embarrassed by male doctors, completely ignoring the fact that his intervention significantly cut deaths?
(No, really; this was to explain why fewer babies delivered by midwives died - the real explanation, which Semmelweis had noticed, being that doctors routinely did autopsies without washing their hands afterwards. Today, he's considered a pioneer of germ theory)
A general recommendation: Consider the possibility that you are not smarter than all the experts in the field. There are many pitfalls in statistics which experts are more aware of than you will be.
Source? Context?
That's because diabetes care is a difficult act of balancing the long-term risks of high BG as well as the short-term risks of low BG. A single hyperglycaemic episode will not kill you but a single hypo might, so it's not unreasonable for them to worry about hypos.
I wouldn't. Does he still recommend intramuscular insulin injections? Does he still talk about "autoimmune episodes" (what do you think the frequently-mentioned GAD antibody test measures?)
An MD does not make you right, and I would recommend that you stay away from any alleged miracle cures unless you now enough statistics to spot the bovine excrement. (I'm planning to comment on Dr Lustig's book as well, btw)
I'm sorry, but it's you that's wrong here. Much like statin denialism, you don't seem to understand that a healthy person with naturally low HbA1c is not the same as a diabetic with intense glucose control. The accord study demonstrated that more people in the group aiming for an HbA1c < 6% died compared to the standard treatment of 7-7.9%.
More bluntly, telling people to aim for <6% resulted in additional and preventable deaths.
In fact, the problem is that you are not doing science at all - your theory of how HbA1c, blood glucose and diabetes (or chooseterol in case of statin denial) works has blinded you to the reality. We practise evidence medicine today, and that means being open to the possibility that your theory is wrong. High HbA1c results in increased risk of complications, and the hypothesis that intense glycemic control will result in even better outcomes is plausible but it is wrong.
A scientist would take that information an adjust is theory. You, instead, blame the researchers for coming up with observations that conflict with your preconceptions.
Remember Semmelweis - how many people died needlessly because people knew that infant deaths were caused by woman being embarrassed by male doctors, completely ignoring the fact that his intervention significantly cut deaths?
(No, really; this was to explain why fewer babies delivered by midwives died - the real explanation, which Semmelweis had noticed, being that doctors routinely did autopsies without washing their hands afterwards. Today, he's considered a pioneer of germ theory)
A general recommendation: Consider the possibility that you are not smarter than all the experts in the field. There are many pitfalls in statistics which experts are more aware of than you will be.
phoenix
Expert
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
'This is what I wrote a couple of years ago, I haven't changed my mind.
I agree that Accord doesn't have much relevance to Type 1s or for many T2s.
This blog post by a Joslin doctor sums up the 'message' of Accord this way.
'This is what I wrote a couple of years ago, I haven't changed my mind.
I agree that Accord doesn't have much relevance to Type 1s or for many T2s.
This blog post by a Joslin doctor sums up the 'message' of Accord this way.
http://blog.joslin.org/2010/12/the-real ... om-accord/
Robinredbreast
Oracle
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
I do take what they say with a large pinch of salt. Not keen on the diabetes doctor for 2 reasons, him saying he doesn't believe in people being sensitive to Insulin, then at the next appointment coming into the room as I was having a hypo and telling the dietican to be careful because I'm sensitive to Insuli :shock: and the other reason isn't medical,I do think my 12 year old could better than him :roll: . Years ago I had a wonderful diabetes doctor, but he left to get more involved in research, such a shame, he was great.
Best wishes RRB
James12 said:Robinredbreast said:Diabetes specialists especially the nurses :? seem to harp on more about hypos and not getting too many, rather than focussing on highs
Best wishes RRB
Robin, you might want to take everything diabetes nurses say with a pinch of salt. Your endocrinologist will be able to give you the best, up to date advice. Having a good diabetes team is extremely important and unfortunately doctors and nurses will have different opinions on what 'normal' blood sugar levels are. Please try and find a team that agrees with your views.
I do take what they say with a large pinch of salt. Not keen on the diabetes doctor for 2 reasons, him saying he doesn't believe in people being sensitive to Insulin, then at the next appointment coming into the room as I was having a hypo and telling the dietican to be careful because I'm sensitive to Insuli :shock: and the other reason isn't medical,I do think my 12 year old could better than him :roll: . Years ago I had a wonderful diabetes doctor, but he left to get more involved in research, such a shame, he was great.
Best wishes RRB
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
the deaths on the study are attributable to them being on a diabetic drug (Avandia) that has since been banned...
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/35169265.php
AMBrennan said:
the deaths on the study are attributable to them being on a diabetic drug (Avandia) that has since been banned...
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/35169265.php
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
I wouldn't pay too much attention to these studies, most HCP's are good, all of mine in the 22 years of being type 1 have been great, you could have a constant Hba1c of 8.0 and live into your 80's just as likely as you could have a perfect Hba1c of 5.5% and live into your 50's/60's.
Do what you're told by the docs, don't miss injections, take responsibility for your high readings and work out why they happened and you'll be fine! The amount of time's I've had a reading in the 20's and tried to say "not my fault", but really, it was, it was the chocolate bar or the birthday cake I didn't bolus for :mrgreen:
I wouldn't pay too much attention to these studies, most HCP's are good, all of mine in the 22 years of being type 1 have been great, you could have a constant Hba1c of 8.0 and live into your 80's just as likely as you could have a perfect Hba1c of 5.5% and live into your 50's/60's.
Do what you're told by the docs, don't miss injections, take responsibility for your high readings and work out why they happened and you'll be fine! The amount of time's I've had a reading in the 20's and tried to say "not my fault", but really, it was, it was the chocolate bar or the birthday cake I didn't bolus for :mrgreen:
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
the National Prescribing Centre is calling for the target HbA1c to be amended as they claim going lower increases the risks of a coronary event...
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/national-pr ... 70.article
this is why we're upset... because these flawed studies are being used to allow them to cut the costs of treating diabetes by reducing the medication being prescribed to T2s or even changing the level at which people get declared to be diabetic...
Someone else has already posted in another thread that his doctor is trying to get him off metformin...
the National Prescribing Centre is calling for the target HbA1c to be amended as they claim going lower increases the risks of a coronary event...
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/national-pr ... 70.article
this is why we're upset... because these flawed studies are being used to allow them to cut the costs of treating diabetes by reducing the medication being prescribed to T2s or even changing the level at which people get declared to be diabetic...
Someone else has already posted in another thread that his doctor is trying to get him off metformin...
Re: WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUAGR LEVELS
Yes, you caught me. I only read the trial design to look at the interventions (same drugs but different thresholds, which resulted in more of the experimental group receiving Avandia.
As it turns out, the conclusion is warranted because their source is correct:
It's still missing the point entirely though - ACCORD showed that intense glucose management based on the ACCORD protocol resulted in more deaths than standard care.
Again, it's not about the danger of low HbA1c but about the risks of the drugs used to achieve the target - do you think Avandia is the only drug with dangerous side effects?
I will concede that ACCORD is flawed, but my point about you not doing science at all remains valid: Targeting the normal HbA1c because healthy people have a normal HbA1c isn't science at all.
Yes, you caught me. I only read the trial design to look at the interventions (same drugs but different thresholds, which resulted in more of the experimental group receiving Avandia.
Do you expect me to take that site seriously? The author doesn't have any clue what he's talking about and can't even cite relevant sources:
That information is meaningless without context - how many people were given the drug in the control group?
As it turns out, the conclusion is warranted because their source is correct:
It's still missing the point entirely though - ACCORD showed that intense glucose management based on the ACCORD protocol resulted in more deaths than standard care.
Again, it's not about the danger of low HbA1c but about the risks of the drugs used to achieve the target - do you think Avandia is the only drug with dangerous side effects?
I will concede that ACCORD is flawed, but my point about you not doing science at all remains valid: Targeting the normal HbA1c because healthy people have a normal HbA1c isn't science at all.
So you don't know the history of that quote then?
