help me understand T2D, I have read the wiki twice
help me understand T2D, I have read the wiki twice. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
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.
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.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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 monitoring shows the shape — excursions, overnight, time in range — and is where improvement usually becomes visible first. Fingersticks are point measurements, useful for sanity-checking a sensor and for specific questions.
Most of the frustrated posts here come from expecting one of the three to answer a question that belongs to another. And all three are inputs to a conversation with whoever manages your care, which is not this board.
That is a sensor value, not a plasma value, and the two are not interchangeable at that level of precision.
What does time in range look like, not just the average?
Have you taken this to whoever manages your diabetes?
Is that a first-day sensor reading?
Small fix — insulin secretion in this class is glucose-dependent, which is precisely why the risk you describe comes from the other agent.
dose for glycaemic control is not the same conversation as dose for weight
Push back: one sensor reading is not a data point worth acting on, especially in the first day of wear.
Push back: one sensor reading is not a data point worth acting on, especially in the first day of wear.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
Correcting myself: 22 weeks between those two A1c results, which is too short an interval to interpret.
Yes — time in range tells you about variability, which the average deliberately hides.
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
Careful, that is a regimen change suggestion and it needs to come from whoever manages your diabetes.
sensor accuracy varies and the first day of a sensor is the worst
That A1c change is inside the assay’s variability and the interval you measured over is too short.
Disagree — that is an obesity trial endpoint and this thread is about glycaemic control.
Retitled — the original quoted an obesity endpoint as a glycaemic one.
Cosigning that postprandial excursions improve first and the fasting number is the laggard.
Agreed. A1c is an integrated average over roughly three months and treating it as a current reading causes a lot of unnecessary alarm.
Postprandial excursions flattened out first and the fasting number took months to follow. Nobody had told me to expect that order.
hypoglycaemia risk depends far more on what else you take
variability matters as much as the mean
I would not compare your numbers to that population. Different baseline, different regimen, different trial.
check the trial population before quoting a result at somebody
This. Hypoglycaemia risk in this class is driven mostly by the other agents in the regimen.
- 1The three numbers, and what each one can and cannot tell you. A1c is an…8 comments in this branch · started by u/source_or_silence
- 2Push back: one sensor reading is not a data point worth acting on,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/rui_only_ro