Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leanne on February 28, 2012 at 8:35am

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!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on February 28, 2012 at 5:06pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unknown Diabetic on February 29, 2012 at 4:46am

LMAO! Good one ar.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KimK on February 28, 2012 at 8:48am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Red_T1 on February 28, 2012 at 8:55am

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.

:)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerri on February 28, 2012 at 9:25am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael McClure on February 28, 2012 at 10:50pm

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.

/\/\

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on February 29, 2012 at 4:27am

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...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael McClure on February 29, 2012 at 5:58am

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?

/\/\

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FHS on February 29, 2012 at 7:21am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael McClure on February 29, 2012 at 9:07am

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.

/\/\

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 28, 2012 at 9:35am

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"!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page