-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
-
Learn more about joining the Diabetes UK Support Forum team here: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/volunteering-opportunities-why-dont-you-join-us.112862/
Fundamental misunderstanding
- Thread starter mhtyler
- Start date
- Status
Martin.A
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
I think the mmo/L number needs to be multiplied by 18 to convert it into mg/dl, so your numbers look right to me (5.2 x 18 = 93.6, for example)
So for example, my last A1c was 7. That was in early January and converts to an average 154 mg/dl or 8.6 mmol/L. Now, however, my average is closer to 111 mg/dl or 6.2 mmol/L and I'm pretty obsessive about checking blood...a lot. What this means is that I'm doing better than I thought...I think. I'll be getting my next A1c late April.
Dragonheart
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
It does. It reports both hba1c and glucose in both sets of units available for each. Your hba1c was 7. So that’s third line down first box. Then you can see above your 7% is the 53 mmol/mol alternative reporting number. Then below those you can see what the equivalent average blood glucose fingerpricks are 155mg/dl or 8.6mmol/L
And yes a single digit number on its own could refer to either an a1c in % or a bgl in mmo/L. That’s why it’s important to understand the context the number is being used in (ie which test was done) and even better if the units are used alongside any number for any test as this issue of alternative measurement units happens with many tests not just glucose.
Dragonheart
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
That works so long as you are taking a good representative range of blood glucose levels (and assumes your red blood cells live the typical 12 weeks). Fingers crossed for you in April.
Tdm
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The youtuber that op is referring to, diabetes strong, is pretty good and reliable....she's a type one herself and isn't trying to flog any batsh*t theorys.
Just cos someone is a doctor doesn't mean they don't have extreme, and possibly dangerous, ideas (yes, dr bernstrein, i'm looking at you)
Just cos someone is a doctor doesn't mean they don't have extreme, and possibly dangerous, ideas (yes, dr bernstrein, i'm looking at you)
Docb
Moderator
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
@mhtyler - this topic is often discussed on the forum,the last being here.
If you have another look at my first post in the thread, it might help you to sort things out.
I am afraid the internet gurus, both good and not so good, do tend to play fast and loose with the concept of blood glucose and the ways of assessing what is going on in the blood stream of any individual. Sounds good coming out of youtube but it is only when somebody, as you have done, stops and actually tries to work their way through what is being said, that you realise just how technically poor some of the content is.
Suggest that you turn off anybody who talks about "blood sugars". If they can't get that simple thing right - they should be referring to blood glucose - then how can you trust what they say when it comes to anything more complicated.
If you have another look at my first post in the thread, it might help you to sort things out.
I am afraid the internet gurus, both good and not so good, do tend to play fast and loose with the concept of blood glucose and the ways of assessing what is going on in the blood stream of any individual. Sounds good coming out of youtube but it is only when somebody, as you have done, stops and actually tries to work their way through what is being said, that you realise just how technically poor some of the content is.
Suggest that you turn off anybody who talks about "blood sugars". If they can't get that simple thing right - they should be referring to blood glucose - then how can you trust what they say when it comes to anything more complicated.
Last edited:
I'm sure I've used that interchangeably with glucose many times myself, but my medical degree comes from Google.
PerSpinasAdAstra
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is a big source of trouble for me - I'm regularly having to re-learn things I thought were simple fact. As I go on learning I begin to spot where doctors, even world class experts, are 'dumbing things down' to simplify complex ideas for the masses and in the process making me doubt things I thought I had learned and everything the doctor says.
One example - I've read two diabetes books in the past few days, one my Roy Taylor and another by David Cavan. Both books are about achieving remission, both books describe the role of the liver in regulating blood glucose levels, and the word glucagon appears in neither book anywhere. Glycogen yes, glucagon no. Both authors manage to write a simple but false description of how glucose secretion from the liver is regulated. Cavan's descriptions are especially ludicrous - for example he states that diabetes happens when the pressure of fat in the liver squeezes on the glycogen stores and thereby pushes glucose out into the bloodstream. It's glycogen, not glucose David! It's a different molecule. You can squeeze on it all you like, it's not going to break down into glucose and hit the bloodstream. And that's not how diabetes happens! The man has to know better - he's a former consultant endocrinologist - he just thinks it's fine to put this stuff in his books because it's only for 'the masses' to read. Simple (but false) it what the masses like, right? I don't expect a medical textbook, but I do expect fact, and I'm finding a mixture in these books and in practically every source online that's not created for a medical or scientific professional audience.
Lucyr
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
Oh dear you’re presumably ignoring anything I ever say then at least. What happened to the forum rule of “Please be respectful of other peoples' opinions about diabetes”
It’s my opinion to prefer saying blood sugar rather than blood glucose when speaking to others as it’s most understandable to other people. Saddened to see a moderator then ignoring everything I say because of that.
I'm sure DocB is referring to doctors and scientists not the, "hoi polloi"...that would be us. I think as long as we refrain from referring to blood cooties we'll probably avoid censure...although now that I think about it, blood-cooties is a great name.
Lucyr
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
Don’t think so as he said “anybody” not “doctors and scientists”…
Leadinglights
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
I took it to mean the 'internet gurus' in YouTube videos that he was referring to.
Docb
Moderator
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Sorry @Lucyr - I was referring to the internet gurus in my comment about "blood sugars". It is those who ought to know better and dumb things down as a marketing ploy I find most annoying.
Rest assured I do not ignore what you say either as a member or a moderator. Far from it, I find your posts interesting and often illuminating. You are very clear in what you want to get across and the one thing I know is that you are not working from a script designed to sell me something!
- Status