[Discussion] the CGM advice in here is 18 years out of date
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/insurancefights repeats that glycaemic control is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 7 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with CGM, not with what you concluded.
Disagree.
Adding to this: CGM is doing more work than the comment implies.
Disagree.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 49 weeks to accept.
How many weeks between the two measurements?
no medication-stopping advice, ever
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
metformin combo is standard
type 2 is the indication, weight loss is the side effect
insulin and sulfonylurea interactions are real hypo risk
insulin and sulfonylurea interactions are real hypo risk
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
Strongly agree. A1c matters as much as weight.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with glycaemic control, not with what you concluded.
the weight-loss conversation drowns out glycaemic control sometimes
metformin combo is standard
metformin combo is standard
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
no medication-stopping advice, ever
Strongly agree. A1c matters as much as weight.
A1c, CGM, stacking with metformin
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.8 comments in this branch · started by u/a1c_arc
- 2metformin combo is standard5 comments in this branch · started by u/hamza_weiss