What really does Pre-D mean anyway? [Archive]

View Full Version : What really does Pre-D mean anyway?

binnieman

08-14-2009, 01:35 PM

I am finding the definition and diagnosis of pre-diabetes quite hard to grasp. Also the WHO has slightly higher standards than the ADA. Is it based on empirical data obtained from complications as a result of those higher values? How did they come up with that range? What is the difference between 99 mg/dl and say 101 mg/dl? My FBS in the lab was 106 but with my meter I have measured as low as 88 but generally in the 90's range. My 2 hours after meal values are near optimal - highest I have seen so far 107. So why would I be categorized as pre-D? My doctor actually never said I am pre-diabetic, she plays the 106 value down calling it high side of normal and told me to check back in a year's time. One more question, are the A1C sample kits and results from Walmart accurate enough? I want to check that too.

fgummett

08-14-2009, 01:49 PM

The way I see it is that Pre-D is some recognition from the ADA etc... that the diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes is just one step on a continuum from health to full-blown Type 2 with long-term complications.

I firmly believe that Type 2 D arises in susceptible individuals following many years (maybe as many as 20 or so) of eating far too much of the refined/concentrated carbohydrates which are all too common in our "Western" diet of processed and packaged "food".

Constant high levels of refined carbs and the resultant high levels of insulin needed to maintain the Blood Glucose (BG) at a normal level finally takes its toll in Insulin Resistance (IR), excess fat storage and an exhausted or failing pancreas... often accompanied by cardio-vascular problems including high BP and deranged lipids/cholesterol.

Like a dam where the water pressure is gradually building up until it breaks... you may be unaware of the impending problem until the dam actually does break by which time it is much harder to fix the problem.

For many of us the dam breaking was the tipping point which resulted in a diagnosis of Type 2. But if you follow my reasoning, that was not when the problem really started.

Be grateful that with a diagnosis of Pre-D you have the opportunity to try and lower the water level and take some of the pressure off the dam.

fgummett

08-14-2009, 02:11 PM

You may be interested in the related discussion in this thread: http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/type-2-diabetes/35533-timeline-normal-prediabetic-full.html

foxl

08-14-2009, 02:24 PM

jps

08-14-2009, 04:12 PM

Hey, if I were ruler for a day, I think I'd come up with guidelines stating any number greater than 100 on two successive occasions warrants deeper investigation. Not 127 or 128 as they have it now. I realize I may possibly be erring on the side of caution, but to me, 106, 102, whatever, is not "normal", in spite of what many doctors may say.

The reason to err on the side of caution is because of the the chasm between prevention and complications. It may cost a few more dollars for tighter screening. So what? Thing of the long term costs....

butterflykisses

08-14-2009, 04:31 PM

... and while you are reading JPS's thread (which I also find to be a wonderful thing), yes the WalMart mail-in kits are pretty darn good. I appreciated having the interim feedback in addition to my meter, too. My MD will only do 3 A1c's per year.

:topic: sort of...has anyone tried the at home A1cNow? I think by Bayer? You don't have to send it in, gives the result in like 5 minutes I think. You have to order it, saw it in the Walgreen's sale paper Sunday and was wondering if anyone has tried it, compared it. It's about $30 for two tests.

ShottleBop

08-14-2009, 07:07 PM

I sent away for a pair. I used one in June, three months after my March lab A1c of 5.3. The A1cNow! gave me a 5.8, which I thought was pretty darn high, given that my three-month average was slightly under 100 at the time. I've decided to save the second one to check at the same time as my next lab test, in September.