In article >, "Priscilla H. Ballou"
> wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > Are you talking about fasting bg? I thought that 140 was on the edge of
> > acceptable. Mine was 143 last time I had blood drawn, and the doctor said
> > that that was OK. Of course, I also had an A1C of 6.1, so maybe that's
> > why. I took a look at the American Diabetes Association website, and they
> > are saying that under 100 is normal, over 126 is diabetes and in between
> > is pre-diabetes.
>
> Yes, those are the current ranges. A repeated fasting BG of over 125
> confirms a diagnosis of diabetes. If your doctor said a fasting BG of
> 143 is "ok" then you need another doctor! And a second fasting BG test
> to confirm the diagnosis.

Doctors like the hemoglobin test better. I'm not even sure why he put the
fasting bg on there. With the hemoglobin at 6.1, he may have assumed that
the 143 was just a fluke.



> I think it's time for you to start learning. Sorry!

Well, to continue learning. In the years since I was first diagnosed
(1972), they've changed the rules a billion times. I find it hard to get
very concerned. Of course, you need to have a certain amount of concern
to get motivated to stay in control. In a diabetes management class I
took some years ago, there was a woman there who admitted to letting her
bg get over 1100! They put her in the hospital for that.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS