Re: what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
- From: "kincherk" <mskincherk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2006 11:00:11 -0700
oldal4865 wrote:
kohlrabi_croce wrote in message-> >other alt.support.whatever sites with less than correct info,
<1151681423.894229.21640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
Hi all,
I got my first FBG result this moirning with my new meter.
The result was 116 mg/dl. So whether I am or not, I guess
it's close.
The alt.support.diabetes site says it's 110.
Quentin told me it's 127. And then I read in another book
that the numbers at which one becomes diabetic is an
individual thing. Holy cow, how am I supposed to know?
The ADA says pre-diabetes is between 100 and 126,
for the FBG or FBS, so I think I'll go with that. Ok,
pre-diabetic it is.
I don't know about alt.support.diabetes, but I have seen
There's an interesting article in June issue of Diabetes Care abouton other topics. Quentin looks to be pretty much right on.
So I guess this is the phase where the hypoglycemia comes
into it.
Anyway, after all the testing I do today, I'll be repeating
it Sat. or Sunday.
thanks,
Tracy
If you are asking about non-diabetic FbG, they are usually below 100.
This NEJM article cited below suggests that 87 is a dividing line which
marks increased risk of progression to full-blown T2 diabetes. In the
sample of nominally "non-diabetic" healthy young men discussed below, 20%
had FbG below 81; 40% had FbG below 86; 60% had FbG below 90; 80% had FbG
below 94 and 100% were below 99.
In any case, bG at 2 hours after eating often is a more sensitive test,
i.e. in one study** , 33% of folks with normal FbG met T2 diagnosis
criteria based on after-eating-bG
pre-diabetes (based on FBG), comparing those who have FBG 100-109 to
those whose FBG is 110-125. They found a much higher risk of IGT and
diabetes for those with FBG between 110-125.
"RESULTS--Clinical demographics were similar in 95 subjects with IFG100
compared with 41 subjects with IFG110, respectively: age 50 vs. 51
years, BMI 32.2 vs. 33.8 kg/[m.sup.2], female 44 vs. 46%, and black 36
vs. 41% (all P = NS). Relative to NGT, IFG100 and IFG110 were
associated with ("conferred") significant (Fig. 1) but comparable risk
of the metabolic syndrome by International Diabetes Federation criteria
(odds ratio ([OR] 7.10 [95% CI 4.39-11.46] vs. 10.33 [4.87-21.88]), but
IFG110 conferred greater risk by NCEP criteria (5.86 [3.66-9.37] for
IFG100 vs. 17.25 [7.58-39.14] for IFG110; P = 0.025). There were also
only minor differences in risk for elevated C-reactive protein (1.27
[0.76-2.121 vs. 1.54 [0.77-3.09]) and alanine amino-transferase (4.03
[2.55-6.38] vs. 2.87 [1.52-5.41]). However, only IFG110 increased the
risk for high urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (0.59 [0.32-1.08] for
IFG100 vs. 2.05 [1.05-4.02] for IFG 110) and LDL cholesterol >130 mg/dl
(0.99 [0.61-1.58] vs. 2.42 [1.28-4.56]) (both P < 0.03 for IFG100 vs.
IFG110).
In contrast, there was a more dramatic difference in risk of
postchallenge glucose intolerance (IGT or diabetes). The risk conferred
by IFG100 was 2.53 (1.554.13), while the risk for IFG110 was 11.54
(5.78-23.02) (P = 0.0004). In multivariable analyses adjusting for age,
race, sex, and BMI, the risk of glucose intolerance was OR 3.22 (95% CI
1.845.66) for IFG100 vs. 13.14 (6.12-28.23) for IFG110 (P = 0.001). "
Extract of article; you can't see the whole thing unless you subscribe:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/29/6/1405
-kincherk
.
- References:
- what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
- From: kohlrabi_croce
- Re: what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
- From: oldal4865
- what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: A typical Aussie "Kiwi" joke about the World Cup.
- Next by Date: Re: For those looking for diet for diabetics
- Previous by thread: Re: what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
- Next by thread: Re: what is the real range of numbers for the FBG?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
