congrats! keep up the good work!
I agree that nice stable numbers are desireable. I've argued in the past that STDEV is not a very good way to measure variation.
On top of that, I would also argue that if you are getting A1Cs in the 5s, you would be hard pressed not to see pretty decent numbers for your variation, however you decide to measure it.
Let's say you have an A1c of 5.9. That would require BG averages in the 120s. If you did yo-yo a lot, let's say you hit a 200. You would need to counter that 200 with a BG in the 50s to even out to an A1c in the 5s. That's a pretty noticeable roller coaster to be able to get into the 5s. Any spikes that are higher would require an even lower number to counter and you start getting to the point where it's impossible to counter enough highs, with low enough lows to be able to realistically expect to be in the 5s.
Dr. Hirsch recommends, that if you are using standard deviation to measure your variability, as long as you have a standard deviation thats 1/3, or less, of your average, you're doing fine. So if your average is 100, if your standard deviation is 33.3 or less, your good.
Realistically, you'd be hard-pressed to find people with A1s who are consistetently in the 5s who need to worry about their variation.
Grats to you, Michael, Timmy, or anybody else who is able to achieve those numbers. The fact is, we can always shoot for better, and there's nothing wrong with doing that in any way you choose to measure our control. Still, if you're seeing those kind of numbers, I wouldn't seriously worry about having to qualify the numbers to anybody.
Yeah, I'm not buyin' it.
There's just no way my A1c was a 5, just no way. My A1c in Oct '11 -- before I started the Dex -- was 6.5. A fairly good number by my reckoning, but I was not in great shape -- it was a 6.5 because I used to experience so many lows, dragging my STDEV calc down, creating the environment for a supposedly healthy (or healthIER) A1c of 6.5. The reason I went on the Dex in the first place was because I used to have hellacious lows (mostly due to not properly compensating afterwards for intense exercise on the mountain bike...). Once I went on the Dex and was receiving warnings about heading south, I would intercept those devastating lows (on and off the bike), and thus after three months on the Dex, my A1c went UP to a 6.7 in Jan '12. Honestly, I was a bit deflated, but looking a t the data I could certainly see the exact logic in the numbers of why it went up -- no more intense lows meant my STDEV calc was going up, therefore the higher A1c. But, I was doing much better, even with a higher A1c!
Now, roll the clock forward to the recent May '12 blood panel I had done and I'm at a 5? I don't think so, even though it is printed there on the sheet of paper. I would have had to have had very strict, flat numbers for all three months in order to hit a real 5. And that's with none of those lows I used to have (well, a few).
I am getting another A1c within a week or two before I go to see my endo on July 31st. I will not be disappointed or surprised to see a 6.7 or 6.9. I simply do not believe the number 5 that shows on the recent test. It's an anomaly - a bad test. No doubt about it.
Thanks for your observations, and once again, sorry for hijacking your thread Timmy. :wave:
/\/\
Outstanding!!