@Sam19 it is great that you state that this is not the case for every as the etiology of hypercholeterolemia can be different from one person to the next. Hence there may be some with high cholesterol that are resistant to the “lifestyle” modification."
This is the same with impaired glucose tolerance" and or impaired fasting glucose. For the most part according to what the evidence based says the profession of IFG or IGT can be reversed.
As can the majority of other diseases, including diabetes.
@jojeegirl Well, a Blighted Ovum may be considered a pregnancy, or it may not; however it cannot be “a little bit pregnant” lol…either you are or you are not.
@jojeegirl and @Sam19 Reverse, of course as you know, does not equate cure. It simply means that you have magnificent control Sans control…your bg will indeed climb up! It’s about balance…and control (which is imperfect).
@Linda_G: I am not contesting the fact whether I am pregnant when in fact I am pregnant. I am just not a cut and dry person. Therefore, the way I feel about it is that before it shows, I am a little bit pregnant. When it does show, I am quite a bit pregnant. This is how I feel about it, with both of my kids.
Clear as mud? Looks like we’re discussing this forever… Let’s just wrap it up. It’s a matter of interpretation
Back to the OT 
lol… @annasdiabetes I know what you’re saying, but for a doctor to refer to diabetes as “pre-diabetes”, it minimizes the seriousness of the condition. Sure, a few people might see the nomenclature possibly as a cautionary red flag; however the majority (as I perceive it, in my involvement in diabetes communities), interpret the diagnosis of “pre-diabetes” to mean “it’s not serious/not a big deal”. I guess if doctors did not take the wait and see approach with many conditions, it might clarify things. What do you think @Magellan13, is this a wrap?
I am new here so please go easy on me 
I am curious, why are you so opposed to the term pre-diabetes? T2DM is a progressive disease. If caught early enough in many instances T2DM can be delayed or prevented with lifestyle and behavioral changes. Staging of T2DM by using the term pre-diabetes heightens awareness and can empower those who fit this criteria to make the necessary changes to reduce risks of complications. This in turn can set the stage for a longer higher quality of life. It is unfortunate that every day people are diagnosed with T2DM with diabetic complications already present, sometimes irreversible, such as damage to the eyes, nerves or kidneys and never having known their risks of developing T2DM because a healthcare provider missed the “pre” in their diabetes. Wouldn’t it be better to spread the word that pre-diabetes exist rather than compare it to pregnancy so that more people understand their part in the managing this? The last time I checked, pregnancy is “reversible” by giving birth.
Well said!
Speaking only for myself, I object to the term for two reasons.
It is misleading. You can have a very mild case, which is what is normally labeled “pre-diabetes”, but it’s still diabetes. Either the body is able to manage its blood sugar on its own without intervention, or it isn’t. Either you have diabetes or you don’t. Calling it something else implies that nothing has really failed yet, it’s just “getting ready to”. That is not the case.
It gives the medical profession an easy cop-out. The thought process goes something like, “this is only pre-diabetes, so it’s not serious yet and I don’t need to invest much of my precious time here. I’ll wait until it gets bad.” Which, of course, is what usually happens. If you don’t believe doctors do that, you aren’t looking closely. Untold numbers of patients could avoid months or years of dangerously high levels of blood sugar if intervention was earlier and more determined. As an example, the Joslin Diabetes Center now puts all newly diagnosed T2s on insulin right away, even if only temporarily. Conceivably they know something.
There is a resistance in the diabetes community to accepting this as truth because they feel that the implication is that they could have prevented their situation but chose not to.
The abilities of the body do change over time don’t they? I don’t understand he steadfast refusal to acknowledge that prediabetes is a situation that can in some cases be reversed. We talk to people every day who were out of shape and had elevated glucose aka prediabetes as a result… They have wake up calls and get into shape and are normal. I don’t understand the point of implying prediabetes isn’t reversible in any case… Some cases may be absolutely destined to become full blown diabetes regardless of lifestyle modification. Many though, are not. To imply that there’s nothing anyone can do about it is the dangerous position in my mind… It’s saying that everyone who ever has a mildly elevated blood sugar is a victim with no possible way to do anything about it and destined to live their life as a diabetic-- no point in even trying. I do not agree with hat.
Most definitely. And in the case of diabetes, if nothing is done, the change is usually for the worse.
I never said it’s not reversible. I said it’s diabetes. In fact my principal quarrel is with the medical profession, who could be “reversing” a lot more cases than they actually do.
Perhaps my point is semantic, but I believe the distinction matters. I believe that the symptoms of diabetes are reversible, especially in the early stages. The underlying metabolic disease is still there, waiting to pounce, if given the opportunity.
Calling the early mild symptoms of diabetes “prediabetes” usually elicits a psychology that damages the health of the person in the longer term. Prediabetes is a euphemism that has left untold number of people with serious damage in its wake. The use of this misleading euphemism invites patients and doctors to slip easily into a dance of denial, a coping mechanism that permits the harsh reality of a disease diagnosis to be set aside. Instead, if the grim prospect of this disease fully engages the patient, s/he could choose to reverse and delay symptoms, the best possible outcome.
I’m a bit confused by this whole discussion. Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t pre-diabetes used to refer to blood sugar that is not normal but does not yet meet the diagnosis for diabetes? There are similar terms like pre-hypertension, aren’t there, to refer to blood pressure that is higher than normal but not yet diagnostic for hypertension?
Yes, the term is used that way and that is precisely what I object to. It’s semantic slicing and dicing that does not honestly reflect the underlying reality. To borrow the words of Oscar Wilde, it’s a distinction without a difference.
I agree with @David_dns. The medical practitioners, through their professional medical associations, have arbitrarily set certain labels to corresponding results of lab and other tests. This branding of the beginning symptoms of diabetes as simply “prediabetes” hurts people.
The practitioner is left off the hook for trying to engage the patient to effect behavior that could reverse or delay much more serious symptoms. The patient is permitted the fig leaf of a prediabetes label as way to think that this finding is not that serious, and therefore no serious changes to his/her habits is needed.
Just try to “watch what you eat and exercise a little more,” the doctor counsels and quickly moves on to the next patient on his/her overloaded schedule. We’ve all heard the stories of people saying that the “doctor found just a touch of sugar,” nothing as serious as full-blown diabetes. This mutual denial permits both the doctor and the patient to move forward as if nothing is wrong. It’s a slow-motion train wreck.
But how would it be any better to have no term? Then people would just be told nothing until they were actually diagnosed with diabetes. Or are you saying that anything considered pre-diabetes should just be considered diabetes? I think the pre-diabetes numbers are pretty low (like 100 fasting and 140 post-prandial), so that would involve changing the criteria for diabetes (plus, I’m pretty sure non-diabetics can have blood sugars in that range at times?).
I hope you don’t mind if I answer the question you posed to @David_dns. I would suggest that “pre-diabetes” be changed to something equivalent to “stage 1 type II diabetes.” And it should be treated as serious as a heart attack because, it is. Just not as acute.
Then what would you say to someone that had two consecutive fasting BS readings just over the diagnostic limit for normal (100 to 105) and an A1c of 5.6 ? My husband was told to watch what he eats, exercise a bit more, before jumping straight to meds. The endo said to him that it may be prediabetes but gave no formal diagnosis just yet. So he is trying to lose weight in hope that when we return in May he doesn’t get the diagnosis-- so in his mind doesn’t have the disease 
Oh and he points out that his uncle lost 40 pounds and reversed his diabetes !
If I had a friend like your husband that wanted to hear my opinion, I would tell him to use your BG meter and test his fasting blood sugar for a few weeks. I would also encourage him to check around a few meals, say at mealtime and 1-2 hours later. Not every meal, just a select representative few. Then let the results decide his next move.
If it were me, I would want to know as soon as possible about a glucose impairment because early action regarding diet and exercise can have the best effect.
But if your husband is resistant to talking about it or considering any line of action greater than his perceived sense of what he needs to do, then there’s not much any one can do.
The last thing most people want to talk about is a change in the way they eat. This is considered even more radical than asking someone to change political party or religion. It’s very personal and all wrapped up in our personal history and emotional makeup. Perhaps this is the force that has most shaped doctors’ policy decision to call early diabetes, prediabetes.