unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about CGM is guesswork
unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about CGM is guesswork. I have gone back and forth on this for months. The three numbers, and what each one can and cannot tell you. A1c is an average over about three months, weighted to the recent weeks. It cannot show variability and it lags change. Continuous…
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints. Reading a result across from one to the other is not a comparison.
a1c can be affected by things that have nothing to do with glucose
Right, and the diabetes programmes report glycaemic endpoints. Quoting an obesity trial result here is answering a different question.
My A1c moved and it turned out to have nothing to do with glucose at all.
Same. The first day of a new sensor is unreliable and people rebuild their whole week around it.
My A1c moved and it turned out to have nothing to do with glucose at all.
This is the distinction that resolves most of the confusion here — average versus shape.
This is the distinction that resolves most of the confusion here — average versus shape.
Disagreeing with this line: that endpoint is from the obesity programme and does not answer the question.
Disagreeing with this line: that endpoint is from the obesity programme and does not answer the question.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
nothing here replaces the person managing your diabetes