Things Are Changing!

The migration of TuDiabetes has begun

Content created between now and the launch of our new site on April 20th will NOT be moved to that new home, but our community values and Terms of Service still apply during this time.We are not accepting new members during this transition period. If you want to join the TuDiabetes community please send an e-mail to We will send you an invitation to join after the migration is completed.

Read about the migration and see images of the new site!

I just had my A1C done and was looking over the blood work. My fasting BG was 139 then off to the side it gives normal range of 65 - 99. I have always been told that if your under 140 it is good but the lab work says I'm high.

For the A1C I am at 6.9 and off to the side it says normal is 5.7 or less. And again I have always been told I need to keep it below 7.0 and that is good.

I am wondering if the lab is right in there range or the doctors I see? Now I know why I stay confused all the time.

Views: 1882

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I wouldn't get too discouraged. My endo also praises me for staying in the 6.5-7 range. I've noticed on this site that some people freak out if they aren't <6 and I don't know how they do it. I think ideally you should shoot for <6 but sometimes it's just impossible no matter how hard you try. 6.9 is still REALLY good and you should be proud of it. A lot of people have a hard time getting under 7. Keep up the good work!

LMAO! Good one ar.

I think the Fasting numbers the blood test company is using are for everyone - including non-diabetics. My last fasting BG was 118 and my paperwork says that was high. It is high for a person without diabetes - but for me, it is fine.

Let me preface this by saying I work in a laboratory and turn out results. I'm also T1 for 17 years now.

The normal ranges are different (but similar) for every laboratory. They are basically the natural spread of numbers seen in 'healthy' individuals. We all know that ideally, our numbers would be the same as the healthy population, but that isn't usually how the cookie crumbles. An A1C under 7 is fabulous for a PWD!! Congrats! I would listen to your doc for ranges to follow since the big D changes things for us. An A1C of under 5.7 is very hard to achieve for most of us and often causes too many lows to be sustainable.


Fasting should be under 100. That's the goal because that's normal. Under 140 is the goal 2 hours or less after meals for PWD.

Afraid that doctors don't have high standards for diabetics, to our detriment. A 6.9 A1c translates to an average BG of 152. Of course, that means that you've been higher & lower. You know how that is from testing.

Since BG over 140 is where damage occurs, being over 140 frequently isn't healthy.

5.7 A1c isn't normal either, regarding a range. A normal A1c would be in the 4's.

Honestly, if my doctor said A1c under 7 was good, I'd find another doctor. I hate that "good enough for a PWD attitude." Set your own goals. Lower BG is doable without having bad lows.

Gerri's number is more correct. A newer study than the DDCT was conducted by the ADA, EASD and IDF from 2006-2008 that changed the eAG calc. The newer calculation is:

28.7 X A1C – 46.7 = eAG

With this calc, an A1c of 6.9 translates to 151 mg/dL, right at Gerri's number. Still high, yes, but not nearly as high an avg as the 168 the old DCCT calc (incorrectly) renders out.

Here's a calculator at the ADA's Diabetes Pro site: Glucose Calculator

Using this method, an A1c of 5.1 gets you to a target of 100 mg/dL, or absolute avg for non-diabetics. Therefore, "A normal A1c would be in the 4's" is incorrect -- a 'normal A1c' is right at 5.1.


I'm not sure 100 is correct though, as I think "straight" people will usually run a shade lower than that? It would be nice, of course, if medical science would clear this up...

Okay. An A1c of 5 nets out to 97 mg/dL. In any case, if the 'target range' for eAG is 90-120 for diabetics (unless that has chenged in recent years...), then I was led to believe the 'normal' average would be in the middle of that somewheres, not at the bottom of that scale.

Also, the Pearson's r) product-moment correlation coefficient on this calc is .84. Does anyone know how that factors into the mix?


Pearson's r is a measure of how strong the correlation is between the two variables. A "perfect" positive correlation would be 1. The correlation between A1c and eAG is pretty strong at .84.

Bascially, you can say that as A1c goes up, eAG will go up as well, and vice versa, with a lot of confidence.

What's missing is the amount of error. None of this says that YOU will have an average BG of 97 mg/dl if YOU have an A1c of 5.0.

All it says is that if you take the people from this study, on average, an A1c of 5.0 will equate to an average BG of 97 mg/dl. It's more reasonable to expect that your own A1c and avg BG will vary either a little or a lot, depending upon the error around the regression.

That makes perfect sense. I'd been reading up on it, but just couldn't figure out how the .84 related here. Thanks for the help.


Any BG above "normal" is causing damage to your body. Currtent thinking says over 140 is dangerous. This does not mean anything under 140 is good. A healthy person will have an A1c of 4.5 to 5.4 or so. An A1c of 5.4 equates to an average BG of about 110 for the past 90 days. The real goal is to keep your BG as close to normal as possible in order to avoid complications. Achieving that level of control is difficult and takes a lot of work and commitment.

In no way am I discounting your efforts or control. Quite the opposite. My concern is the standard medical response that anything under 140 / 7.0 is great. It is not. It's great compared to the 436 and 12.3 I started at, but it is NOT protecting us from complications. It is only kicking the can down the road. And not all that far. It infuriates me that we are told this is good. Are we incapable of rising to the task? How can we be expected to have great control when we are not given complete or accurate information by the very people we look to for help? Yes, tight control means a danger of lows. It is NOT a gaurentee of lows, but an A1c over 6 is a gaurentee of complications. As a T1 I know that I probably will have an A1c above the ideal, but why should I aim for anything less? Nothing about D makes this impossible. It's like Jack Nicholson is our Dr screaming "You can't handle the truth"!




From the Diabetes Hands Foundation blog...

DHF Joins Diabetes Advocacy Alliance

Diabetes Hands Foundation is incredibly honored to join the Diabetes Advocacy Alliance, an organization with the drive and potential to affect a powerful, positive impact on diabetes and healthcare policy. Diabetes Advocacy Alliance is a 20-member coalition of leading professional Read on! →

Helmsley Charitable Trust Renews Support for DHF

HELMSLEY CHARITABLE TRUST GRANTS SUPPORT TO DIABETES HANDS FOUNDATION FOR FOURTH YEAR  Funding in 2015 to support major transitions in programs and leadership at Diabetes Hands Foundation BERKELEY, CA: February 18, 2015 – The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Read on! →

Diabetes Hands Foundation Team


Melissa Lee
(Interim Executive Director, Editor, has type 1)

Manny Hernandez
(Co-Founder, has LADA)

Emily Coles (Head of Communities, has type 1)

Mila Ferrer
(EsTuDiabetes Community Manager, mother of a child with type 1)

Mike Lawson
(Head of Experience, has type 1)

Corinna Cornejo
(Director of Operations and Development, has type 2)

Desiree Johnson  (Administrative and Programs Assistant, has type 1)


Lead Administrator

Brian (bsc) (has type 2)


Lorraine (mother of type 1)
Marie B (has type 1)

DanP (has Type 1)

Gary (has type 2)

David (has type 2)


LIKE us on Facebook

Spread the word


This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.

© 2015   A community of people touched by diabetes, run by the Diabetes Hands Foundation.

Badges  |  Contact Us  |  Terms of Service