unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about T2D is guesswork
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about T2D is guesswork.
Sensor accuracy varies across wear, and readings on the first day are the least reliable. Calibration practice and compression artefacts explain many alarming single values.
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
Incretin-based agents stimulate insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, which is why hypoglycaemia risk with them alone is low. Risk rises with agents that act independently of glycaemia.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Certain conditions affect A1c independently of glycaemia. If a result looks inconsistent with the sensor data, that is a question for whoever manages your care rather than for this board.
A1c reflects average glycaemia over roughly the preceding three months, weighted towards the most recent weeks. It cannot show variability and it lags any change you make.
A1c reflects average glycaemia over roughly the preceding three months, weighted towards the most recent weeks.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
Panicked over a first-day sensor reading and rebuilt my week around it. It was the sensor.
How long between the two A1c measurements?
How long between the two A1c measurements?
Adding the obvious one — bring the export, not the single number, to whoever manages this.
I would not compare your numbers to that population. Different baseline, different regimen, different trial.
I would not compare your numbers to that population.
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.
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.
Push back: one sensor reading is not a data point worth acting on, especially in the first day of wear.
Left up. It distinguishes the sensor data from the lab result, which most posts here do not.
Continuous monitoring shows the shape: postprandial excursions, overnight behaviour and time in range. Two people with identical A1c can have very different distributions.
Careful, that is a regimen change suggestion and it needs to come from whoever manages your diabetes.
a single high reading is not a trend
Right, and the diabetes programmes report glycaemic endpoints. Quoting an obesity trial result here is answering a different question.
glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints
That A1c change is inside the assay’s variability and the interval you measured over is too short.
a1c can be affected by things that have nothing to do with glucose
time in range is the more informative number and it is newer
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
Variability dropped before the average did, which was visible on the sensor and invisible on the lab result.
Disagree — that is an obesity trial endpoint and this thread is about glycaemic control.
sensor accuracy varies and the first day of a sensor is the worst
Disagree — that is an obesity trial endpoint and this thread is about glycaemic control.
slow_logbook_notes30 is right that the fasting number moves last. Knowing that in advance saves months of worry.
variability matters as much as the mean
dose for glycaemic control is not the same conversation as dose for weight
Kept fingersticks alongside the sensor for two weeks to sanity-check it. Worth doing once.
Postprandial excursions flattened out first and the fasting number took months to follow. Nobody had told me to expect that order.
- 1Certain conditions affect A1c independently of glycaemia. If a result looks…10 comments in this branch · started by u/runa_grimaldi