Proud to be erratic
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 3c
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It's not just the missing insulin hormone, it's all the other missing hormones, vitamins and enzymes. I have to micromanage all of those, as best I can. My GP didn't understand either when there was an attempt to stop me from finger pricking more than 4 times daily; no appreciation of how complex it all is when new to it.I am not sure what difference having no pancy is compared to having a pancreas that produces no insulin.
Fair enough, you can choose whatever alarm setting you want. You don't have to select 6.8, or 5.6; you mighr prefer 5.0 or 4 2.I have definitely experience the type of plummeting blood sugars you mention when exercising with too much insulin onboard.
This is why I like the predicted hypo alert you get on xDrip. It takes into consideration the slope of the trend as well as the current value so I don’t get the annoying 5.5 but almost flat alerts. An alert at 6.8 would be incredibly annoying for me as my target level is. 5.6.
I'd like to choose closer to 6.8 and have a 2nd alarm closer to 4, then I get a warning that change is happening after dropping below 6.8, can reset it to, say, 5.6 and still have the Urgent alarm nearer 4.5. My target level was 7, as directed by my Endo and he's recently suggested I can lower that towards 6. That worked for me, in conjunction with Diabox alarms, allowing me to intercept almost all potential hypos; and if I failed, such hypos were always high 3s and short-lived, rarely becoming low glucose events.
What I don't understand is why Abbott mandated 5.6 as their upper threshold. What is the significance of that limit? Also, as I gain a better sense of what is happening overall and understand my body signals, I don't need alarms quite so much. As a newbie alarms were a huge psychological aid and for me to be constrained to just 5.6 was a handicap until I got Diabox and appreciated how much better my management could be. The people writing the Diabox software clearly had a better understanding of what helps, within the tech limits, than Abbott do. Abbott, by removing the Reader from L3, haven't appreciated that this is a useful subsidiary aid for some people in some circumstances. It's not just a matter of not having a smart enough phone; I find the reader invaluable in places where my phone is just a nuisance.
By any definition the NHS are a big customer for Abbott and they have clearly abrogated their responsibility for this significant contract. They are passive recipients, not involved in the failure rates and not involved in getting an improved product.