old school...need a little assistance.

[fit226]

i am so old school when it comes to blood sugar monitoring...i use the readings of 5.2, 6.1, and so on...what is the comparison to the posts i have seen that read 70 -120 range? Is there a chart that compares the two?

thanks

[xMenace]

It's a factor of 18. 5.2 = 93.6.

[princesslinda]

There's also a converter you can use under "site navigation" to the right of the screen.

[fit226]

thanks guys and girls.

[Janlaton]

I'll use the converter as well. Wanted to know but did not want to ask.:D

[HollyB]

You're not old school -- you're Canadian, eh!

(Actually I think most of the world uses this system, except for the U.S.)

[Alice]

I'll add a question on this topic...if ok.

I always use the term "points"...when referring to my meter number. Such as 98 dropping down to 60, therefore, "I dropped 38 points in an hour"...or such.

What is the "real" name for these number units? What are they exactly? Or, did I intuitively guess correctly?

[IrishJoe]

the lower ones are milimoles of glucose per Litre of blood (mm/L)

the other american ones are miligrams per decilitre I *think* but im not sure how everything works in americania

[slipperyelm]

Actually, it is micrograms per deciliter on those USAmerican reported large numbers.

(I'm not sure how everything works in America either, Patrick. I live smack dab in the middle of it, and trying to figure it all out sometimes hurts my soul. :( The units for that are not micro- or mili- anything, but mega-something.)

[Alice]

Thanks...I've never heard a doctor talk about micrograms...maybe they're confused also?

[Eddy]

Actually, it is micrograms per deciliter on those USAmerican reported large numbers.


Milligrams per deciliter.

One mole of glucose is 180 g. One millimolar means 0.001 moles (180 milligrams) per liter... or 18 milligrams per tenth of a liter, a.k.a. deciliter.

1.0 mmol/L = 18 mg/dL

:)


(I'm not sure how everything works in America either, Patrick. I live smack dab in the middle of it, and trying to figure it all out sometimes hurts my soul. :( The units for that are not micro- or mili- anything, but mega-something.)


It's pretty simple, really: Avoid anything that resembles SI units, lest we be directly-compatible with the rest of the world. :D

[fit226]

ahhh, the insanity of grade 12 chemistry..MOLES!!

[ant hill]

ahhh, the insanity of grade 12 chemistry..MOLES!!

Eh Maths I was hopless at. :mad:

[Cormac_Doyle]

Nah - moles make sense ... I might have 5 mmols/dl glucose; 3 mmols/dl HDL cholesterol; 6 mmols/dl LDL cholesterol and 12 mmols/dl Triglicerides ... but under a g/dl system, the average molecular weight of the individual molecules has to be determined ... and then the answer given in grams ... thus the conversion factor for glucose is 18:1; the various types of Cholesterol are somewhere in the 40:1-50:1 ratio; the Triglycerides are something else ... and all the numbers look Huge ...

By using mmols - there's a good rule of thumb ... NONE of them should be over 10 ;)

[Scrabblechick]

Maybe the shock factor is the reason the U.S. measures BG as we do. LOL. I mean, a 300 BG SOUNDS so much worse than a 16.6. Same amount of glucose in the blood, but 300 just looks a lot more serious. Heh.

My two cents (and I realize it's not worth that much. LOL.)

[HelenM]

I mean, a 300 BG SOUNDS so much worse than a 16.6.
As I've said before, I live in the home of the metric system and seem to be the only place that uses grams per litre. A healthy BG is only 0,8. A high of 30.0 sounds very high in comparison.

Results from lab tests always give both mmol and g/l. but being scientists the mmol figure gets most emphasis(the one they use for ranges)