Brice > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:38:48 -0500, Boron Elgar
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Jinx the Minx
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Cheri > wrote:
>>>> "Jinx the Minx" > wrote in message
>>>> news >>>>> Pamela > wrote:
>>>>>> On 00:37 5 Nov 2018, Jinx the Minx > wrote in
>>>>>> news >>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7 is the norm for an A1c level in the U.S. I don't know about
>>>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7 is considered diabetic in the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some sites sites say anything over 6.5 is diabetic. It's worrying
>>>>>> someone like John who claims to have trained in diabetic nursing doesn't
>>>>>> know that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, the threshold is much lower than 7. I just called out 7 since
>>>>> that’s the value JK said was “the norm”. It’s little wonder how
>>>>> medical
>>>>> errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> My doc, fairly young from India, wants to have type 2's shoot for 6.5 or
>>>> lower with the A1c, even into the 5's ideally.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>> I’m no doctor but I am a T2, and I agree with that! My last A1C was 5.4.
>>
>> Guidelines have recently been revised based on long term studies of
>> risks and benefits. The suggestion used to be lower HbA1C levels in
>> thinking that it would help reduce microvascular complications.
>> Studies have not borne that out, thought so...
>>
>> T2 goals are now between 7.0 and 8.0.
>>
>> http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/26...nt-adults-type
>
> Well, there you go.
>

Relevant article, thank you. I think it bears noting that A1C targets for
those diagnosed and being treated for diabetes are higher than used to
diagnose diabetes.