tried T2D for 15 weeks. here is what happened.
tried T2D for 15 weeks. here is what happened. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here.
15 weeks — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
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.
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
The order things move in, since nobody explains it and it worries people.
Postprandial excursions generally respond earliest. Variability tends to narrow before the average does, which is visible on a sensor and invisible on a lab result. Fasting glucose is often the laggard, and A1c — being a three-month average — is the last thing to reflect anything.
So a month in which the sensor looks better and the fasting number has not moved is the ordinary sequence, not a contradiction. Knowing that in advance would have saved me a quarter of unnecessary worry, which is why it is worth writing down.
[deleted]
That A1c change is inside the assay’s variability and the interval you measured over is too short.
Small fix — insulin secretion in this class is glucose-dependent, which is precisely why the risk you describe comes from the other agent.
What else is in the regimen?
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
Correcting myself: 6 weeks between those two A1c results, which is too short an interval to interpret.
Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my situation. They are different programmes.
Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my situation.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
time in range is the more informative number and it is newer
That is a sensor value, not a plasma value, and the two are not interchangeable at that level of precision.
Agreed. A1c is an integrated average over roughly three months and treating it as a current reading causes a lot of unnecessary alarm.
Are you quoting a diabetes trial or an obesity one?
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.
Retitled — the original quoted an obesity endpoint as a glycaemic one.
- 1Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my…6 comments in this branch · started by u/hamza_weiss