[Results] 38 weeks, 14kg, and T2D was the hard part
Six-word version is the title — 38 weeks, 14kg, and T2D was the hard part — and the rest is context.
38 weeks and 14kg. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
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.
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Careful, that is a regimen change suggestion and it needs to come from whoever manages your diabetes.
Careful, that is a regimen change suggestion and it needs to come from whoever manages your diabetes.
bianca_dziedzic is right that the fasting number moves last. Knowing that in advance saves months of worry.
check the trial population before quoting a result at somebody
That is a sensor value, not a plasma value, and the two are not interchangeable at that level of precision.
a1c can be affected by things that have nothing to do with glucose
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.
Push back: one sensor reading is not a data point worth acting on, especially in the first day of wear.
hypoglycaemia risk depends far more on what else you take
Continuous monitoring shows the shape: postprandial excursions, overnight behaviour and time in range. Two people with identical A1c can have very different distributions.
Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my situation. They are different programmes.
nothing here replaces the person managing your diabetes
I would not compare your numbers to that population. Different baseline, different regimen, different trial.
Have you taken this to whoever manages your diabetes?
My hs-CRP moved and it turned out to have nothing to do with glucose at all.
Disagree — that is an obesity trial endpoint and this thread is about glycaemic control.
Cosigning that postprandial excursions improve first and the fasting number is the laggard.
Kept fingersticks alongside the sensor for two weeks to sanity-check it. Worth doing once.
Right, and the diabetes programmes report glycaemic endpoints. Quoting an obesity trial result here is answering a different question.
Postprandial excursions flattened out first and the fasting number took months to follow. Nobody had told me to expect that order.