the glycaemic control thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
the glycaemic control thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
My TSH moved and it turned out to have nothing to do with glucose at all.
Variability dropped before the average did, which was visible on the sensor and invisible on the lab result.
Assumed the weight endpoints from the obesity trials applied to my situation. They are different programmes.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Sensor accuracy varies across wear, and readings on the first day are the least reliable.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
the fasting number is the one people fixate on and it moves last
Identifying details redacted from the exported report above.
Identifying details redacted from the exported report above.
Adding the obvious one — bring the export, not the single number, to whoever manages this.
Not convinced. Hypoglycaemia risk from this class alone is low; the risk you are describing comes from the combination.
variability matters as much as the mean
Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.
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.
Is that a first-day sensor reading?
I would not compare your numbers to that population. Different baseline, different regimen, different trial.