anyone else notice T2D kicking in around week 89
Reporting in. anyone else notice T2D kicking in around week 89.
On hypoglycaemia, because the risk gets attributed to the wrong thing constantly.
Incretin-based agents stimulate insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent way: the effect scales with glycaemia rather than acting unconditionally. That is why monotherapy risk is low. Where risk rises substantially is in combination with agents that lower glucose independently of the current level.
Which means the question "does this cause hypos" is not answerable without knowing the rest of the regimen — and that the person who can answer it is the one who wrote the regimen. Nothing on this board is a substitute for that conversation, and the good threads here end by saying so.
My ApoB moved and it turned out to have nothing to do with glucose at all.
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.
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.
hypoglycaemia risk depends far more on what else you take
glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints
Right, and the diabetes programmes report glycaemic endpoints. Quoting an obesity trial result here is answering a different question.
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
[deleted]
check the trial population before quoting a result at somebody
Not convinced. Hypoglycaemia risk from this class alone is low; the risk you are describing comes from the combination.
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.
time in range is the more informative number and it is newer
Postprandial excursions flattened out first and the fasting number took months to follow. Nobody had told me to expect that order.
Careful, that is a regimen change suggestion and it needs to come from whoever manages your diabetes.
Yes — time in range tells you about variability, which the average deliberately hides.
Cosigning that postprandial excursions improve first and the fasting number is the laggard.
Left up. It distinguishes the sensor data from the lab result, which most posts here do not.
How long between the two A1c measurements?
Variability dropped before the average did, which was visible on the sensor and invisible on the lab result.