What do you want from a meter

[cugila]

Why do people not read the entire post.

I think we have established that some peeps want a more accurate meter. :roll:

I think we have also established that the cost of such a meter (at present is not justifiable) :roll:

I think we have also established most peeps would not pay the cost for such a meter. :roll:

Fuji.
As usual....you have hit the nail on the head. An excellent precis of what has been said in this topic.
Funny, I don't recall ANYBODY saying they don't want a more accurate meter ?? :?

 

[suffolkboi61]

fujifilm wrote

I think we have also established that the cost of such a meter (at present is not justifiable)

So what your saying is it will cost too much?? :lol: :shock:

 

[qrp]

There is a differerence between not saying you don't want a more accurate meter and stating that you do - positively - want one. Fair enough, stretching it a bit semantically perhaps but one is passive and the other assertive, proactive etc. One mind-set leads to inaction, the other, not.
All that notwithstanding, more accurate meters are evidently some way off. A firm that could come up with one would sweep the board if it were genuinely an order of accuracy better.
Incidentally, with Fuji's post in mind, does a statement asserting something to be so "establish" it? I rather think some supporting evidence is no bad thing when statements are made on behalf of the rest of us, as it were. Now I think about it, maybe I would be willing to stump up a good few bawbees for a superior meter, accuracy-wise, that is. So, not justifiable in whose opinion? qrp

 

[Fujifilm]

First the post was started as a bit of fun, that is to say

[n] - verbal wit (not to be taken seriously)

For some reason it turned into a debate on meter accuracy.

not justifiable in whose opinion? qrp

From my understanding it does appear that the cost of making a meter more accurate is not justifiable for the end result. Ie. the extra accuracy given relative to the cost would be of no benefit to the end user. I would imagine its the people who make / commisssion the meters opinion that the extra cost makes it not justifiable.

If worst case scenario the meter was + / - 20% out, a reading of 6 would mean you were either 4.8 or 7.2 at a reading of 3 you would be 2.4 or 3.6 but lets say for arguments sake the meter is actually 10% out which is probably a fare assumption for most meters.

At a reading of 6 would mean you were either 5.4 or 6.6 at a reading of 3 you would be 2.7 or 3.3

Is a reading inaccuracy of less than 1 mmol going to make a big difference to your overall control? and if it is, do you want to pay £300 for your free meter to know that your BG is .5 more or less than your meter thinks it is. :roll:

OK so we have established that on a lot of peoples wish list they would like more accurate meter readings :roll:

CAN WE NOW MOVE ON.

I am going for a sit down in a dark room, :lol:

Deja moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.

..

 

[qrp]

Fair enough, Fuji, and, yes, it's time to move on. Thank you for your restrained post. It has, actually, been useful, to me at least, and I see the validity of your example to most people's situation. Newbies do tend to get swept up into a numbers game, though, don't they? I mean, the GPs, DSNs et al all talk as if one's life henceforth is ruled by this number or that. Limits on BG 2hrs post meal or, "make four the floor" etc - you've heard them all. So one gradually comes to be ruled by the meter. I think I'll relax a bit from now on so thanks again guys for spending the time to elucidate. qrp

 

[Fujifilm]

Fair enough, Fuji, and, yes, it's time to move on. Thank you for your restrained post. It has, actually, been useful, to me at least, and I see the validity of your example to most people's situation. Newbies do tend to get swept up into a numbers game, though, don't they? I mean, the GPs, DSNs et al all talk as if one's life henceforth is ruled by this number or that. Limits on BG 2hrs post meal or, "make four the floor" etc - you've heard them all. So one gradually comes to be ruled by the meter. I think I'll relax a bit from now on so thanks again guys for spending the time to elucidate. qrp

You are right with this numbers game thing, I think you could end up getting paranoid and working far too hard towards getting the "perfect" numbers.

I think its a conspiracy between the meter companys and the doctors, the more the docs get people testing the more money the stick companies make the more back handers the docs get. :lol: (disclaimer - this is a joke )

Life is for enjoying and you need to get the right balance. Life is a lottery and the only dead cert is we are all going to croak at the end of it. :lol: :lol:

The thing is if you croak next week, how gutted will you be that you did not have that bacon roll today. So I am taking no chances and I am off for a crusty bread bacon roll. :lol:
.

 

[qrp]

Fuji, the best jokes have a grain or two of truth in them! Tiny bit off topic but I've worked up a recipe for bread that's 4 carbs per 30 gm slice so it's nearly 25% of the carbs of regular bread and so, in turn, about twice the carbs of Fergus' bread. And his must be the lowest around. So a bacon buttie is 'on' anytime I like. I suppose I ought to put in in recipes if anybody would like to try it...qrp PS Did you spot the numbers again!!

 

[cugila]

Fuji, the best jokes have a grain or two of truth in them! Tiny bit off topic but I've worked up a recipe for bread that's 4 carbs per 30 gm slice so it's nearly 25% of the carbs of regular bread and so, in turn, about twice the carbs of Fergus' bread. And his must be the lowest around. So a bacon buttie is 'on' anytime I like. I suppose I ought to put in in recipes if anybody would like to try it...qrp PS Did you spot the numbers again!!

If that bread is anything like as chewy as most low carb bread I have tried I wouldn't fancy it as a Bacon Sarnie.....give me a Crusty White any day, stuff the carbs. 32g per sarnie ! A meal for me.