I'm also with Andy. Without having had the ability to test as often as I wished in the early weeks after diagnosis I would have had no idea how certain foods affect my numbers and would be in even worse case now as a result. As it is my numbers are often erratic, not because of what I eat, but because of the degree of function of my pancreas on any given day.
I was given no training on how to use the meter or how to interpret the results and record them, I had to work all that out for myself. I believe that, in order to present statistically significant results, any study into the benefits of self-monitoring in Type 2s needs to include that training so that particiapants understand the importance of recording the exact data their monitor is showing them. I haven't read through the whole thing but it looks to me as though the whole exercise was pretty badly designed so that the results are not particularly reliable. Or are we simply an especially narrow cross-section of the population in that we mostly consider testing to be a valuable tool for all diabetics that, had we been included in the study, we might have tipped the balance the other way?
