Lately, I've seen some other DOC bloggers talking about averages. Mine have been pretty decent, though I've been higher than I'd like the last couple of days. (When I start the day above 130, I seem to tend to drift up...when I start the day around 100, I tend to stay there. I like staying there.)
Machine averages are a great feature, but they're certainly not everything. I've caught myself thinking, "Hey, do you really need to test again? You may ruin your average." Bad thought, bad idea. I'm not exactly being graded on this.
I generally feel "OK" in a pretty wide swath that goes well into the "uh-oh" range. I normally feel fine up to close to 200, and on the other side, I am usually obviously impaired at 70. I usually feel bad enough at 85 to want to do something about it. I've only tested below 70 once so far, and it was an odd feeling...akin to the effects of alcohol. I feel extremely fortunate to be so sensitive to hypos, and I hope I keep that.
So, there's another side to averages too, that needs some discussion. On days when I'm running high, and I'm doing correction boluses, I know my "actual" average is lower than what the machine would suggest. So it would be nice if the machine could reflect that in some way. I believe that it tends to average out over time. In any case, it's the A1C that everyone trusts.
I know that there are continuous glucose monitors out there, but I'm not sure if my insurance would cover it, and it seems like it introduces several problems as well. We'll see how well my next A1C (which I expect to do in February) reflects what my machine is telling me. The techie side of me sees all kinds of opportunities to have fun with the data provided by a CGMS, but I also think I would obsess over it more than would be good for me.
Posts
