|
|
|
|
In article >,
(Dan Abel) wrote:
> 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.
In the US, A1c is not considered diagnostic.
Priscilla
--
"It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest
of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever.
The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal."
- QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal
|