Average hba1c stats?

anyone know how we all are actually doing here, with statistics?

thank you,

one study found average at hostpital intake, which was a seemingly depressing 9.9%, but the population sample was people who were hospitalized, so it stands to reason.

Up until recently, we collected a1c results reported on TuAnalyze here. Here's a report of the findings, it's pretty detailed and thorough. I think the overall average was 6.9.

From Here

The organization is just now beginning to synthesize all this data to find out what kind of picture it paints of life with type 1 diabetes in the U.S.

So far, it’s not a pretty picture at all. They report:

Most people with type 1 in the U.S. fail to meet ADA treatment targets of an A1C of 7 or below
Adults with T1 average A1C of 7.5-8%
A majority of adults with T1 are overweight or obese (matching the stats of non-diabetic America!)
Average A1C for under age 12 is 8.3%
For ages 13-17, average A1C is 8.7% (those rocky teenage years!)
Oddly, older adults (age 50 and up) had the best average A1C of all the groups, at 7.6% — but they also had a surprising percentage (14-20% per year) of hypoglycemia, including events like seizure, coma, and ER visits
In T1s over age 40, 20-30% are already living with diabetes-related complications

thanks marie b, thanks tracy sue,

greeeeeaat article tracy
a bit sad.

makes sense that those involved at tudiabetes are a full percentage point ahead.

These statistics reflect the way that we as diabetics are treated. How often are we told by doctors and healthcare professionals that we should keep our A1c < 7%. If we see the doctor and our A1c is 7%, they say "Great, keep up the good work." If we come in and have an A1c of 8%, they finally work with us to improve things.

Given this approach, we should expect that the T1 population has an average of 7.5-8%. That simply reflects how the system has achieved the treatment goal.

Personally, I think the whole ADA treatment model is just messed up.

Only 14-20% of older adults had hypoglycemic episodes? I assume that includes blood sugar readings below 70 but even if it only includes readings below 60, I'm shocked that the percentage is so low! No wonder the A1c average is so high.

It says "events like seizure, coma and ER visits" so I'm assuming they are talking only about these incidents of hypoglycemia not your run of the mill low number that we easily treat. In that case I would assume it was 100%!

I also question the stat that "the majority of Type 1's are overweight or obese". In my experience most Type 1's are either thin by nature and/or by maintaining much more control over their diet than the average American. Obviously there are exceptions especially with doctors now pushing the "you can eat whatever you want and bolus for it" idiocy, but they are exceptions and many of the people who fall prey to that catch it, especially as they age.

I agree with Brian that it is the low expectations of the medical profession that foster the less than stellar A1C's. The only antidote to this being knowledge...and of course the DOC!

Maurie I can only assume they are probably referring to “episodes” of hypoglycemia… Ie requiring help of another person rather than a lower than optimal reading of below 70 (or any other specific number for that matter) on a device that’s only ± 15% accurate. That would make a lot more sense

You're probably right but if this is a self reported measure I'd love to see the actual hypoglycemia question. Perhaps people are actually setting targets high enough so that they never feel the need to treat or they are treating when their blood sugar goes below 90.

I think the reason that the results are high is because the goals are high. 6.9 is pretty much right on target with aiming at 120-140 and considering that ok, allowing excursions up to 180-200, etc. all in the name of avoiding hypos. It doesn't mean the people with diabetes are bad, it means the targets are bad. Of course, this is not going to generate a lot of enthusiasm in the "treatment community" because the doctors are the ones giving us the targets. Shooting at 140 is like aiming at the broad side of a barn. The danger of hypos is certainly real but, if you follow blogs, twitter, message boards, etc., you will likely see plenty of folks, running BG up and down and probably having about as many hypos as I do.

Sportster and Clare both reported their success with lowering targets in a good thread about "7-14-30 day averages" here:

This isn't to say that everyone should go nuts but, if you're not happy with your results, the way to change them might be to think about what you are aiming at. Maybe a study comparing goals (pump/ cgm settings?) to results would be able to show something? My goal is 85 but, even if I don't hit it all the time, if I'm not there, it gives me something to think about..."hmmm, how do I get it there? Should I get it there? Can I let it ride or do I need to do something?" These same questions occur pretty much all the time but, if I'm shooting at 85, I get something out of it! nk "ok, I'm ______, what do I need to do now?" just like if I ran it up to 200 to run, and ran 20 n 20 points off, I will need some treatment un!

I like your dialectic on targets; i think we need a valid dialectic on what it does to a human for your blood sugar to fluctuate to 180 and back often, verses staying in normal range. i get depressed, fatigued, will to live goes down, i want to eat cjunky foods and carbohydrates, etc.

for me it's never been feasible to feel sane while eating more than a bernstein style no carb diet.. right now my blood sugar is around 4.8% a1c, and ive gone low once in the last 2 months, even with exercise -- and i dont check my blood sugar (which is another discussion, interesting to be doing as a t1d)

i dont think there's any judgment necessary, lots of love all around, i love seeing what everyone is doing, and im happy that ive gone through no carb phases and not no carb phases. i dont think i would have ever gone back to no carb if i didnt go too far letting my blood sugar going high.. made it easy to convert when i lost my fast acting insulin while off insurance and had to start using n and r, knowing that i would never thrive or be happy with these slow annoying insulins if i didnt go no carb. (i love them now)

also, i muscle test my doses.

What might be needed, unfortunately, is research to substantiate my conclusion which is 1) based on a pretty small sample size (AcidRock23's online buddies...) and 2) has no actual data, because it's all on sort of a "war story" basis, although I was always interested in the TuAnalyze data as it displayed on the map, etc.

I eat way more than a Bernstein diet, and drink quite a bit more than he Rx's too. I've been playing around with cereal in the AM, sort of egg burnout/ time slacker and it's been interesting. The spikes are steep but I seem to be able to catch them right around 130 and then they nosedive back down.

What is "muscle testing"? I did IV R shots fairly regularly back during my wilder days, as it was a useul way to turn a 350 into a 75 in like 1/2 hour but it is obviously horribly dangerous and hair-raising. I also would have a shot in my leg and run up and down the stairs 10x on say Thanksgiving, to get rid of the appetizers in time for turkey, etc. At that time, I was much less scientific than I am now, although I am really not a fan of logging.

Isn't everything we do a "war story?"

I shoot for 100, but average below that. Lows are a huge concern, but I am still OCD about hitting the right BG readings and correct to bring it down from even 109.

I have been logging religiously for a month, and have learned A LOT. Downloading is too easy, and does not make you ponder the numbers that are significant for me.

Logging is a pain, but the introspection it brings can be very important.

Logging is a pain, but the introspection it brings can be very important.

Well said!!


Concur. 100%.

Low expectations produce low results.

I once read that the most powerful influence of a student's academic success was the teacher's expectations. The lowered expectations of not only doctors but also the professional advocacy organizations permit us diabetics to feel satisfied with less than stellar performance. I am painfully aware of the dangers of hypoglycemia but think we can do better with less hypoglycemia. A lower carb diet has done amazing things for my BGs while that way of eating receives little to no support from the mainstream medical community.

I was happy with sub 7% A1c's until I received a complication diagnosis. With zero support (actually derision) from my doctor, I was able to go under 6% with far fewer lows. I fired the endo.