miketurco

Standard distribution of A1c values across US population

16 posts in this topic

None of the A1c's were at 6 or below and none of the 2hr. marks were 150 or less.  This is an average of 7200 people.

 

Maybe I read it wrong :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the A1c's were at 6 or below and none of the 2hr. marks were 150 or less.  This is an average of 7200 people.

 

Maybe I read it wrong :blink:

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "none of the A1Cs were at 6 or below" - but in the paper, all of the A1C values in terms of the means are below 6.0.  For 18-39 year olds, the mean is 5.3, for 40-59 year olds, the mean is 5.6, and for folks over 60, the mean was 5.9.  See attachment.

post-58054-0-28072400-1474997867_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "none of the A1Cs were at 6 or below" - but in the paper, all of the A1C values in terms of the means are below 6.0.  For 18-39 year olds, the mean is 5.3, for 40-59 year olds, the mean is 5.6, and for folks over 60, the mean was 5.9.  See attachment.

 

Those stats indicate that more than 50% of the over 60 have pre-diabetes and that there is a steady progression towards metabolic syndrome as we age in our culture. It also shows that age has a strong association with metabolic syndrome. That, of course, does not imply age causes metabolic syndrome. 

 

These stats also show why it is difficult to statistically determine meaningful normal glucose levels using population statistics, but if I had to choose from this paper I would choose the 18-39-year-olds stats. Even so, I  suspect that quite a few of the younger group also already have the beginnings of metabolic syndrome, so those stats are bias upwards and that normal glucose levels should be even lower.

Edited by OldTech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't understand the charts either. I'd like to know if a peak of 140 is good or bad no matter how long it was after you ate

 

That's right on the edge. Based on my memory in terms of what I've read, levels over 140 cause damage, as do sustained levels of over 125. Dr. Bernstein claims to have seen peripheral neuropathy in his patients with A1c's as low as 5.

Oriana likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms this statistical study, you can look at averages across the country, etc. That doesn't define diabetes, though. I think the bottom line is twofold. First, a reasonable definition of "diabetes" is that your body isn't able to keep your blood sugars at a safe level. Second is that "unsafe levels" of blood sugar can and often will damage every part of your body -- sometimes at a devastating level. (Blindness, loss of limb, heart disease, etc.) What "safe levels" and "good goals" are is open to debate. The study itself only tells you where people are at, across the US, in terms of their numbers. 

OldTech likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One paper I read said that even glucose levels of 110 was toxic to beta cells.

 

Bernstein seems to be the only one pushing hard for A1c's of less than 5. Just because he's the only one doesn't mean he's wrong. His numbers are what I'd like to have, and I hope to hit them eventually. Not sure that's even possible for me, but I have been making progress in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask bc I sort of fool myself bc a lot of my readings are peaking at 140 and I think 'oh thats fine maybe I dont have pre diabetes' but then i've heard people who really don't have it peak much lower than that.

miketurco likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One paper I read said that even glucose levels of 110 was toxic to beta cells.

I never go by these test, but actual results of large populations. As long as your A1C is under 6 your odds of developing diabetes complications by CDC statistics of patients requiring care for them is slim to none and slim left town. In fact incidences of complications have dropped by half since 1990, retinopathy by 65%, so if an A1C in the 5-6 range (according to the charts above over half the non-diabetic population resides in that range) were damaging at all there should be a huge uptick of complications instead of a dramatic drop (average A1C of diabetics dropped from 9 to 7.8 since 1990). Get your A1C as low as you are comfortable with, but if you want to avoid or stop complications going lower than 5 is not necessary as even half the non-diabetic whipper snappers (age 18-39) don't even go that low. For some people the stress of trying to go that low would most certainly be more damaging than slightly elevated BG levels.

miketurco, Seagal, OldTech and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now