You make an interesting point. However, I would argue that what you describe is a hoped-for result of good glycemic control … but not necessarily a definition. As I understand it, there is a strong correlation between low A1C and fewer complications, for, example, but that is not a guaranteed result. I’m lucky enough to to be nearing 5 decades as a T1D with precious few complications, but I KNOW there there are people on this forum who consistently display SIGNIFICANTLY better glycemic control than I, but have not been so lucky.
Certainly bringing up previous eras in T1D history makes me realize the standard of good control of one’s diabetes must have changed dramatically. After all in the POS (pee on stick) era when there was no HbA1C or many other tools, what was the definition of “good control”? Probably something like not many visits to the ER and/or hospital. Even once we got to the finger stick world, I now realize that a few measurements pre-meal likely gave one a very rosy estimate of exactly how good they were doing. It was probably only when HbA1C became widely used that more quantitative definitions of good glycemic control began to evolve. I expect that a number of us lucky enough to now be using CGM were initially surprised by the variations seen with the benefit of 288 readings per day.
Even with all the tools I now have, I struggle to get to the edge of what is now considered good glycemic control … and I now know that for many years I was deluding myself to think that I was well-controlled even by the lesser standards of previous eras.
Thank you for your frequent, informative, and interesting contributions to this forum.