Excellent work, Manny. I have to say, the proposed change to a standard expressed as an estimated average glucose (eAG) is too much math for me. My head doesn’t need more numbers to track. I like the simple A1C: number decimal point number. Below 7: good. Below 6.5: really good. Below 6: approaching normal, whatever that means! Come on, admit it. Doesn’t 6.2 sound ever so much better than 131.24?!
yup, i second the KellyRawlings motion… this is why i’ve been using mmols as my bg unit of measurement since day one! =D
ah a 6.2!.. i’m so so jealous!, that’s awesome Manny!!!
say, could you explain the whole deal about “average MEAN glucose/eAG”… what is THAT!?? i’m lost… did i miss something? is that some attempt to convert the united states to another language the rest of the world doesn’t speak again?
This is it. This is what we are about. Sharing our triumphs, our challenges, the good, the bad and all the information we can get our hands on: like one big family! YAY!!!
Okay, being a nerd I have to ask. Any things you can point to that might have been contributors to this awesome number? More exercise, better food control, less stress even?