[Discussion] can we stop arguing about T2D until somebody posts a number
can we stop arguing about T2D until somebody posts a number. 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
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.
postprandial excursions are where most of the improvement shows up first
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.
the diabetes trials report different endpoints from the obesity ones
What does time in range look like, not just the average?
How long between the two A1c measurements?
glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints
check the trial population before quoting a result at somebody
A1c, CGM, or fingersticks — which are we discussing?
Agreed on variability. Two people with the same average can have completely different days.
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
Adding the obvious one — bring the export, not the single number, to whoever manages this.
Cosigning that postprandial excursions improve first and the fasting number is the laggard.
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.
This is the distinction that resolves most of the confusion here — average versus shape.
sensor accuracy varies and the first day of a sensor is the worst
Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my situation. They are different programmes.
Kept fingersticks alongside the sensor for two weeks to sanity-check it. Worth doing once.
time in range is the more informative number and it is newer
- 1postprandial excursions are where most of the improvement shows up first13 comments in this branch · started by u/joaquin_stanescu
- 2A1c reflects average glycaemia over roughly the preceding three months,…7 comments in this branch · started by u/ice_pack_audit