Stanford Study

I received an email today that basically said thanks for your time --
you'll be hearing from us again in six months (and a gift certificate
for amazon.com).

I guess this means I'm not being assigned to a group. :-(

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:14:57 -0600, BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote:

>I received an email today that basically said thanks for your time --
>you'll be hearing from us again in six months (and a gift certificate
>for amazon.com).
>
>I guess this means I'm not being assigned to a group. :-(

Replying to my own post, as I found the other email from the Stanford
Team in my spam folder (don't know why they keep ending up there).
Anyway, I'm in the control group -- but I am "a necessary part of
research." ;-)

Hope y'all have fun. :-)

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

"BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
news:in7gk2livr4djm8tesgacas4ineo78df78@4ax.com...
:I received an email today that basically said thanks for your time --
: you'll be hearing from us again in six months (and a gift certificate
: for amazon.com).
:
: I guess this means I'm not being assigned to a group. :-(
:
: BlueBrooke
: T2/D&E/June 2005
:
: The things that come to those who wait will
: be the things left by those who got there first.

That's all you're getting for your participation is a "gift cert" to
Amazon.com? If it is, kinda cheesy imo. I'm in a study myself
right now for a certain medication for another condition I have
and I'm getting $35 per visit. I go 2x a month for 18mons and
free medication that I was paying $35 a month for prior and my
dose is adjusted per what I say on how I'm doing not what the
doctor thinks and under medicates me. This place I'm going to
also is holding 5-6 different Diabetic studies which I was asked
to participate in a new Lantus study but have so far declined since
I pump, I would have to stop pumping and go back to taking Lantus,
but I might, depends.

RK

You get what you pay for, right?

I'm also in the control group. So for my gift certs (I think I get one
every 6 months), they get a blood sample every 6 months for a 2 year
duration.

I wasn't in it for the gift certs, and considering I can participate
without ever leaving my neighborhood (I was going to say home, but we
have a cluster mailbox down the street), I'm fine with the level of
compensation. After all, I joined not for the certs but for the
additional knowledge and support I'd get if selected for the active group.

mt

rk wrote:
> "BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:in7gk2livr4djm8tesgacas4ineo78df78@4ax.com...
> :I received an email today that basically said thanks for your time --
> : you'll be hearing from us again in six months (and a gift certificate
> : for amazon.com).
> :
> : I guess this means I'm not being assigned to a group. :-(
> :
> : BlueBrooke
> : T2/D&E/June 2005
> :
> : The things that come to those who wait will
> : be the things left by those who got there first.
>
> That's all you're getting for your participation is a "gift cert" to
> Amazon.com? If it is, kinda cheesy imo. I'm in a study myself
> right now for a certain medication for another condition I have
> and I'm getting $35 per visit. I go 2x a month for 18mons and
> free medication that I was paying $35 a month for prior and my
> dose is adjusted per what I say on how I'm doing not what the
> doctor thinks and under medicates me. This place I'm going to
> also is holding 5-6 different Diabetic studies which I was asked
> to participate in a new Lantus study but have so far declined since
> I pump, I would have to stop pumping and go back to taking Lantus,
> but I might, depends.
>
> RK
>
>
>


--
T2 dx May 2005 with A1c 10.1
1000 mg Metformin 2x day
1000 mg Fish Oil (Omega 3) 2x day
500 mg Niacin 1x day
last A1c: 5.0 (Oct 2006)

"Michael" <micha8s-yahoo@please-don't-spam-me.com> wrote in message
news:eiafs1$sb6$1@az33news01.freescale.net...
: You get what you pay for, right?
:
: I'm also in the control group. So for my gift certs (I think I get one
: every 6 months), they get a blood sample every 6 months for a 2 year
: duration.
:
: I wasn't in it for the gift certs, and considering I can participate
: without ever leaving my neighborhood (I was going to say home, but we
: have a cluster mailbox down the street), I'm fine with the level of
: compensation. After all, I joined not for the certs but for the
: additional knowledge and support I'd get if selected for the active group.
:
: mt

I got involved because it was with a medication that was very simular to
what I was taking and was starting to have a fight with my doctors again
to keep my script going since the one doctor I was seeing split from the
practice and they no longer accepted my insurance it became a PITA. As
far as how far I have to drive? It's a 15min trip up the road, I'm there for
maybe 20mins every 2 weeks for right now. LOL and they have a bucket
of Snickers out all the time.

I'm in the active trial group.

--
Reisa, T1, Animas IR1250 Pumper
DX-5/00 ASD-7/00
A1C: 6.2% (8/24/06)
Daily CHO: 150-200gm
TDD: 34-38u

:
: rk wrote:
: > "BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
: > news:in7gk2livr4djm8tesgacas4ineo78df78@4ax.com...
: > :I received an email today that basically said thanks for your time --
: > : you'll be hearing from us again in six months (and a gift certificate
: > : for amazon.com).
: > :
: > : I guess this means I'm not being assigned to a group. :-(
: > :
: > : BlueBrooke
: > : T2/D&E/June 2005
: > :
: > : The things that come to those who wait will
: > : be the things left by those who got there first.
: >
: > That's all you're getting for your participation is a "gift cert" to
: > Amazon.com? If it is, kinda cheesy imo. I'm in a study myself
: > right now for a certain medication for another condition I have
: > and I'm getting $35 per visit. I go 2x a month for 18mons and
: > free medication that I was paying $35 a month for prior and my
: > dose is adjusted per what I say on how I'm doing not what the
: > doctor thinks and under medicates me. This place I'm going to
: > also is holding 5-6 different Diabetic studies which I was asked
: > to participate in a new Lantus study but have so far declined since
: > I pump, I would have to stop pumping and go back to taking Lantus,
: > but I might, depends.
: >
: > RK
: >
: >
: >
:
:
: --
: T2 dx May 2005 with A1c 10.1
: 1000 mg Metformin 2x day
: 1000 mg Fish Oil (Omega 3) 2x day
: 500 mg Niacin 1x day
: last A1c: 5.0 (Oct 2006)

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:03:42 -0700, Michael
<micha8s-yahoo@please-don't-spam-me.com> wrote:

>You get what you pay for, right?

Well, it looks like I don't even get that!

I went to use the gift certificate code and found out that you can
only use those on orders that are paid for with credit cards -- paying
by check or money order, I can't use the gift certificate.

So, I guess all I can say is, "Gee! Thanks!"

:-)

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

I got my letter from the lab today:

A1c: 5.8
HDL 42 mg/dl
LDL 91 mg/dl
Total 181 mg/dl

Frankly, I was really surprised that my A1c was so low -- I didn't
expect that at all. My last one was 6.8 (about a year ago).

I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0.

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:54:02 -0600, BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote:

>I got my letter from the lab today:
>
>A1c: 5.8
>HDL 42 mg/dl
>LDL 91 mg/dl
>Total 181 mg/dl
>
>Frankly, I was really surprised that my A1c was so low -- I didn't
>expect that at all. My last one was 6.8 (about a year ago).
>
>I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0.

Good news! Congratulations!

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican

"BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
news:kuk2l25uqsag7ekuh9cavaf79q48s7i0t2@4ax.com...
>I got my letter from the lab today:
>
> A1c: 5.8
> HDL 42 mg/dl
> LDL 91 mg/dl
> Total 181 mg/dl
>
> Frankly, I was really surprised that my A1c was so low -- I didn't
> expect that at all. My last one was 6.8 (about a year ago).
>
> I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
> management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0.

What was the top of lab normal on your last test? - I hate to pour cold
water, but they may have moved the goalposts. Top of mine is 6.

OTOH, if it's a real 5.8 - WELL DONE : )

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.5/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg

"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."

No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.

On 08 Nov 2006 14:35:47 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:

>"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."
>
>No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
>the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.

Oh, this is good to hear. I didn't know that change was made -- how
did I miss *that* announcement? LOL!

Thanks for letting me know.

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

Hi, Nicky!

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:56:05 -0000, "Nicky"
<ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote:

>
>"BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:kuk2l25uqsag7ekuh9cavaf79q48s7i0t2@4ax.com.. .
>>I got my letter from the lab today:
>>
>> A1c: 5.8
>> HDL 42 mg/dl
>> LDL 91 mg/dl
>> Total 181 mg/dl
>>
>> Frankly, I was really surprised that my A1c was so low -- I didn't
>> expect that at all. My last one was 6.8 (about a year ago).
>
>What was the top of lab normal on your last test? - I hate to pour cold
>water, but they may have moved the goalposts. Top of mine is 6.

Unfortunately, I don't know. Don't worry about the cold water -- I
know I should be really happy, but I'm not feelin' it. :-)

>OTOH, if it's a real 5.8 - WELL DONE : )

Yes, this is true, and thanks. But I just don't see how it could be.
Although I was doing really, really well in August, but the rest of
the time has been a mess, with some half-hearted stabs here and there
(no pun intended -- LOL!) at trying to keep in control.

What will be really interesting is the next test in six months. Will
be, I assume, the same lab. I won't be testing as much (buying the
strips is getting to be a problem), but I pretty much know what to do.
So -- we'll see. :-)
--

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote:
> On 08 Nov 2006 14:35:47 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:

>>"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."
>>
>>No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
>>the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.

> Oh, this is good to hear. I didn't know that change was made -- how
> did I miss *that* announcement? LOL!

Go to their web site and look for it. Then you'll know why you (and
lots of other people) not only missed it but found what looks like a
"<7% is good" recommendation instead :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
news:mvv3l2dnoko4at6p3akatkku0sievh5s09@4ax.com...
> On 08 Nov 2006 14:35:47 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
>
>>"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."
>>
>>No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
>>the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.
>
> Oh, this is good to hear. I didn't know that change was made -- how
> did I miss *that* announcement? LOL!
>

Does the ADA actually say that normal is 4.6-5.2?
If so, exactly where?
bj

On 8 Nov 2006 16:49:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote:
>> On 08 Nov 2006 14:35:47 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
>
>>>"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>>>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."
>>>
>>>No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
>>>the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.
>
>> Oh, this is good to hear. I didn't know that change was made -- how
>> did I miss *that* announcement? LOL!
>
>Go to their web site and look for it. Then you'll know why you (and
>lots of other people) not only missed it but found what looks like a
>"<7% is good" recommendation instead :-)

Hi, Chris --

Actually, I've been to the ADA website (not lately, that's true) and
they don't "do" anything for me. I'm shooting for closer to 5%,
personally. If the ADA has changed their recommendations recently, I
think that's great -- but it really doesn't have anything to do with
me. I assumed this was new because I don't ever remember anything on
the ADA site about 4.6-5.2 being "normal" -- but like I said it has
been quite awhile since I was there -- and after wandering around for
a long, long time, I admit I did give up.

The "you have good control" at < 7% is in the letter I got from
Stanford with the lab results. So I guess that's what *they* consider
"good control" -- based on ADA recommendations? I don't know --
doesn't say.

It says:

Normal: less than 7.0% (You have good control of your diabetes
management.)
High: 7.1 - 8.9 (Talk to your doctor about making changes in your
diabetes management.)
Very High: 9.0 or more (Talk to your doctor immediately to make
changes in your diabetes management.)

It will be very interesting to see what the results of this study are
in a couple of years. :-)
--

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

On 08 Nov 2006 14:35:47 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:

>"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."
>
>No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
>the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.

Very pleased to hear that - could you link to the page where
they say it please?

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican

x-no-archive: yes

Alan S wrote:
> On 08 Nov 2006 14:35:47 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
>
>
>>"I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0."
>>
>>No longer, the ADA now says as far below 6 as you can get it closer to
>>the mormal range of 4.6 - 5.2.
>
>
> Very pleased to hear that - could you link to the page where
> they say it please?

I don't believe the ADA says that. They seem to be saying that 6% is a
"non diabetic, normal" HbA1c, which is a rather bizarre assertion when
you consider that it's an average, which can allow spikes into clearly
diabetic range.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> I don't believe the ADA says that. They seem to be saying that 6% is a
> "non diabetic, normal" HbA1c, which is a rather bizarre assertion when
> you consider that it's an average, which can allow spikes into clearly
> diabetic range.

No, they don't seem to be saying that. Another good reason why I'm
glad you don't archive your messages.

Kurt

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:45:11 +1100, Alan S
<loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:54:02 -0600, BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote:
>
>>I got my letter from the lab today:
>>
>>A1c: 5.8
>>HDL 42 mg/dl
>>LDL 91 mg/dl
>>Total 181 mg/dl
>>
>>Frankly, I was really surprised that my A1c was so low -- I didn't
>>expect that at all. My last one was 6.8 (about a year ago).
>>
>>I did note that they say "you have good control of your diabetes
>>management" if your A1c is "normal" -- which is < 7.0.
>
>Good news! Congratulations!
>
>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
>Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Thanks, Alan -- I appreciate the good thoughts. :-)
--

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

Regarding the ADA a1c guideline for diabetics:

"Very pleased to hear that - could you link to the page where they say
it please?"

The ADA 2006 guidelines, although it appeared in previous years:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../29/suppl_1/s4

" * The^ A1C goal for the individual patient is an A1C as close to
normal (<6%) as possible without significant hypoglycemia."

The "less then sign" before the 6 says 6 is not the goal but the worst
case upper number.

x-no-archive: yes

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> Regarding the ADA a1c guideline for diabetics:
>
> "Very pleased to hear that - could you link to the page where they say
> it please?"
>
> The ADA 2006 guidelines, although it appeared in previous years:
>
> http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../29/suppl_1/s4
>
> " * The^ A1C goal for the individual patient is an A1C as close to
> normal (<6%) as possible without significant hypoglycemia."
>
> The "less then sign" before the 6 says 6 is not the goal but the worst
> case upper number.
>

But that's incorrect. More than 4.8-5% isn't normal if one considers
normal to be intact pancreatic function and blood glucose readings in
the same range as those with no progressive impairment.

Susan

> " * The^ A1C goal for the individual patient is an A1C as close to
> normal (<6%) as possible without significant hypoglycemia."
>
> The "less then sign" before the 6 says 6 is not the goal but the worst
> case upper number.
>

"But that's incorrect. More than 4.8-5% isn't normal if one considers
normal to be intact pancreatic function and blood glucose readings in
the same range as those with no progressive impairment."

I don't follow your point. they don't say 6 is normal, as pains were
taken to describe above. Less then 6 as close to normal, and by
definition within the normal range as well, is the goal.

By definition non-diabetic metabolism can not be achieved even when bg
numbers are normalized to be within a normal range. A large intake of
carbs will shoot the post meal number right back up and repeated events
of this will in time raise the a1c above 6. emantic word play aside,
the original poster said 7 was the goal and the now < 6 was offered as
the new goal and the web reference offered by request.

x-no-archive: yes

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:

> I don't follow your point. they don't say 6 is normal, as pains were
> taken to describe above.

They say that anything lower than 6% is normal, though anything above 5%
is not. Further, they must be saying it in materials distributed to
docs, who've begun to use 6% as a diagnostic screen since the ADA
wording was changed.

> Less then 6 as close to normal, and by
> definition within the normal range as well, is the goal.

No, they clearly indicate that 6% is normal by their definition.
That's what the parentheses indicate, that they're defining what came
before.

> By definition non-diabetic metabolism can not be achieved even when bg
> numbers are normalized to be within a normal range. A large intake of
> carbs will shoot the post meal number right back up and repeated events
> of this will in time raise the a1c above 6.

No shit. Yet in the past weeks I've heard two folks say their doc told
them they're not really diabetic because they got their A1c under 6%.


emantic word play aside,
> the original poster said 7 was the goal and the now < 6 was offered as
> the new goal and the web reference offered by request.

You're playing word games, I'm reading what they clearly say.

Susan

On 09 Nov 2006 01:49:57 GMT, coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:

>emantic word play aside,
>the original poster said 7 was the goal and the now < 6 was offered as
>the new goal and the web reference offered by request.

Not to be confrontational here, and just for the sake of accuracy --

The < 7% figure that I posted was from another source (the Stanford
study diabetes team). It is what I typed, but it is not what *I* say
-- or what I believe. :-)
--

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:4rfg70Fr1adiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> They say that anything lower than 6% is normal,
> though anything above 5% is not.
>

Who, exactly, says this, and where & on what authority?
bj

x-no-archive: yes

bj wrote:
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:4rfg70Fr1adiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>They say that anything lower than 6% is normal,
>> though anything above 5% is not.
>>
>
>
> Who, exactly, says this, and where & on what authority?
> bj
>
>
>

bj, there've been quite a few citations about this posted here over the
years, by me and by others.

Jenny has quite a number of posts on the topic here, so I don't even
have to dig mine up:

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/15945839.php

Susan

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:44:31 GMT, "bj"
<bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

>"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:4rfg70Fr1adiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> They say that anything lower than 6% is normal,
>> though anything above 5% is not.
>>
>
>Who, exactly, says this, and where & on what authority?
>bj
>
>
I don't think they use the word "normal", but the
EPIC-Norfolk study, despite it's limitations, was pretty
clear in it's implications:
http://tinyurl.com/y8kv4g

"HbA1c was continuously related to subsequent all cause,
cardiovascular, and ischaemic heart disease mortality
through the whole population distribution, with lowest rates
in those with HbA1c concentrations below 5%. An increase of
1% in HbA1c was associated with a 28% (P<0.002) increase in
risk of death independent of age, blood pressure, serum
cholesterol, body mass index, and cigarette smoking habit;
this effect remained (relative risk 1.46, P=0.05 adjusted
for age and risk factors) after men with known diabetes, a
HbA1c concentration >= 7%, or history of myocardial
infarction or stroke were excluded. 18% of the population
excess mortality risk associated with a HbA1c concentration
>= 5% occurred in men with diabetes, but 82% occurred in men
with concentrations of 5%-6.9% (the majority of the
population)."

Read the full study at the link for further background and
limitations.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican

"BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
news:v004l2hhjucouu3pe3qn1s5p3p4id0gc69@4ax.com...
> What will be really interesting is the next test in six months. Will
> be, I assume, the same lab. I won't be testing as much (buying the
> strips is getting to be a problem), but I pretty much know what to do.
> So -- we'll see. :-)

Fingers crossed for then, then : ) As you say, if nothing else this test is
a good baseline.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.5/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg

" emantic word play aside, the original poster said 7 was the goal and
the now < 6 was offered as the new goal and the web reference offered by
request."

"You're playing word games, I'm reading what they clearly say."

Not at all, I'm no fan of the ada but you want to take the worst
possible view of what is clearly an advance in guidelines. Someone said
7 was the goal, the ada now says it is less then 6, in other words the
"5 club" of this newsgroup. Do I hear applause or sour grapes?

x-no-archive: yes

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> " emantic word play aside, the original poster said 7 was the goal and
> the now < 6 was offered as the new goal and the web reference offered by
> request."
>
> "You're playing word games, I'm reading what they clearly say."
>
> Not at all, I'm no fan of the ada but you want to take the worst
> possible view of what is clearly an advance in guidelines. Someone said
> 7 was the goal, the ada now says it is less then 6, in other words the
> "5 club" of this newsgroup. Do I hear applause or sour grapes?

The ADA web site defines "normal" as (6%). 6% is indicative of a CVD
risk that is extremely elevated, as elevations begin to occur at 4.6-4.8%.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
>
>> " emantic word play aside, the original poster said 7 was the goal and
>> the now < 6 was offered as the new goal and the web reference offered by
>> request."
>>
>> "You're playing word games, I'm reading what they clearly say."
>>
>> Not at all, I'm no fan of the ada but you want to take the worst
>> possible view of what is clearly an advance in guidelines. Someone said
>> 7 was the goal, the ada now says it is less then 6, in other words the
>> "5 club" of this newsgroup. Do I hear applause or sour grapes?
>
>
> The ADA web site defines "normal" as (6%). 6% is indicative of a CVD
> risk that is extremely elevated, as elevations begin to occur at 4.6-4.8%.
>
> Susan


P.S. I just read my most recent lab report, on which it says 6% is "non
diabetic." This disinformation is why docs are now using 6%
inappropriately as a diagnostic mark, despite the fact that it's an
average, not a diagnostic value.

Susan

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:53:52 -0000, "Nicky"
<ukc802466929@btconnect.com> wrote:

>
>"BlueBrooke" <.@.> wrote in message
>news:v004l2hhjucouu3pe3qn1s5p3p4id0gc69@4ax.com.. .
>> What will be really interesting is the next test in six months. Will
>> be, I assume, the same lab. I won't be testing as much (buying the
>> strips is getting to be a problem), but I pretty much know what to do.
>> So -- we'll see. :-)
>
>Fingers crossed for then, then : ) As you say, if nothing else this test is
>a good baseline.

Thanks, Nicky -- you're right. I was disappointed at being assigned
to the control group and not being part of the study -- but I am
supremely grateful for the free lab work. :-)
--

BlueBrooke
T2/D&E/June 2005

The things that come to those who wait will
be the things left by those who got there first.

"The ADA web site defines "normal" as (6%). 6% is indicative of a CVD
risk that is extremely elevated, as elevations begin to occur at
4.6-4.8%."


Ah, so it is sour grapes is it? "Less then 6" is not 6 but anything
below that number,ie. the 5 club of this newsgroup. In practice the 6
would be a worst case number and not the goal diabetics should be asked
to achieve.

"Extremely" it is not, the risk above 5 increass by a percentage for
each additional a1c percentage. The 5 is used because numbers below it
were not used in establishing risk levels.

This hand waving and foot stomping diverts from the topic, the ada
number is no longer 7 but less then 6 and it is a lowering that should
be celebrated and encouraged even lower, which sour grapes does not.

"P.S. I just read my most recent lab report, on which it says 6% is
"non diabetic." This disinformation is why docs are now using 6%
inappropriately as a diagnostic mark, despite the fact that it's an
average, not a diagnostic value."


This is irrelevant to the topic, every lab has its "normal" range for
a1c as it does for all results and there is variation among them where
some have an upper number less then 6 and some a bit higher. They are
not diagnostic but only guidlines for the doc and patient and too often
too high in the top number in my opinion.

There is at present no test to account for the daily variation for the
a1c average, though I posted an article advancing one recently. Again,
this is not a topic of post meal numbers, it was a response to the old 7
as the a1c goal and a correction to the current less then 6.

coonskin@amestwp.com wrote:
> " emantic word play aside, the original poster said 7 was the goal and
> the now < 6 was offered as the new goal and the web reference offered by
> request."

> "You're playing word games, I'm reading what they clearly say."

> Not at all, I'm no fan of the ada but you want to take the worst
> possible view of what is clearly an advance in guidelines. Someone said
> 7 was the goal, the ada now says it is less then 6, in other words the
> "5 club" of this newsgroup. Do I hear applause or sour grapes?

I'll applaud when the <6% is given the same prominence as is given to
the apparent suggestions that <7% is good. It's not the absence of
good advice on the ADA web pages I object to, because it's all there
somewhere. It's how much easier it is to find bad advice, or at least
to misinterpret rather vague and ambiguous advice. I don't just mean
the general public. It's clear that plenty of doctors who think
they're following the ADA's recommendations have been misled too.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Has anyone in one of the Stanford study groups been able to get there
today?

I'm in one of them, but haven't been able to access the site today...
Just wondering it's the whole site, just my group, or just me.

--bittersweet

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:30:23 -0500, bittersweet wrote
(in message
<do2al2tlm8nu0kd5u3r9o0sjav2bqs2a7b@4ax.com>):

> Has anyone in one of the Stanford study groups been able to get there
> today?
>
> I'm in one of them, but haven't been able to access the site today...
> Just wondering it's the whole site, just my group, or just me.
>
> --bittersweet
>

It's the whole site. They're showing an error
message on and off.

TaniO
(can we get our money back?)